I received a pleasant surprise this morning while watching Bob Schieffer interview Senator John McCain on Face the Nation. The surprise was the reappearance of the candid and honest John McCain we used to know before the 2008 presidential election campaign. It reminded me of the McCain of the 2000 "Straight Talk Express" days, of the man who used to be my favorite Republican. It was good to see him back.
There he was, telling Schieffer that torture is not only illegal, but immoral and ineffective. "Under torture, a prisoner will tell you anything he thinks you want to hear," said McCain, sounding like either a peacenik or a man who knows something about torture first hand.
He spoke of going to Iraq with his friend, South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. There they were allowed to talk to a man McCain referred to as, "an al Qaeda operative." The Arizona lawmaker related how he had asked the man how al Qaeda had begun making inroads in Iraq. "The first opportunity came in the general chaos after the American invasion, when there was no law and order in the country." "The second," he said, "came after the news about Abu Ghraib reached the people. Suddenly, there were thousands of young men eager to join our ranks." By relating this story it is clear that McCain gets it.
During the election campaign this McCain was nowhere to be found. The former proponent of American morality and adherence to international law and civilized behavior had adopted a strategy founded on appealing to the conservative base of the Republican Party alone. That group refuses to hear of anything the country might be able to improve upon, so during the election race McCain turned to backing the Bush-Cheney "enhanced interrogation" regime and ridiculing Obama's promise to abide by U.S. law and common decency.
It is good to see that now out of the grip of his campaign team of Rove-trained pols and an imagined need to draw distinctions with Obama even where he was clearly right, McCain has returned to sense and to his ethical center. It does not say much for the Republican base when its candidate feels he must cater to its mythologies at election time to win its votes, even when he knows they are not only erroneous but against his own principles as well. Those who will not hear the truth can never face reality and correct mistakes.
Welcome back, John. It was good to see you again.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Edward M. Kennedy, Rest in Peace
Senator Edward M. Kennedy's long battle with brain cancer ended last night. Teddy passed away at the age of 77. With the passing of the youngest Kennedy brother we come to the end of an extraordinary era in American society and politics. The famous Kennedy legacy of idealism came to be personified by perhaps its least likely protagonist these past forty-one years.
Ted was the youngest, fattest, and seemingly softest of the four sons of Joe and Rose Kennedy. He had a penchant for hedonism in some ways even beyond those of his older brothers. Yet with their untimely deaths he eventually pulled himself together, assumed the mantle of their service and came to surpass them in many important ways.
It is hard to believe that Teddy spent nearly as much time in the United States Senate as brothers Jack and Bobby lived. They joined eldest brother Joe, Jr., who died even younger flying for the Army Air Corps on a mission to take out a German V-1 rocket launching site in World War II.
They were meteors who flashed brilliantly across the public sky but were snuffed out decades too soon. He alone lived to the grayness of old age, and came to embrace the role of the incremental fight of advancing his cause by inches over the years. It was a role his early temperament did not seem suited for, but one he embraced and filled well. Today the accolades run the gamut from Al Sharpton and Howard Dean to John McCain and Nancy Reagan.
All seem to agree he was one of the last of a dying breed, the politician of conviction who could fight the good fight yet remain friends with his colleagues across the aisle. His ability to craft compromises on education, civil rights and health have been remarked upon by many of his colleagues and will be sorely missed. For though he was often vilified in earlier years by conservatives as the prototypical liberal bogeyman, he was paradoxically one who was better at the old-fashioned skill of finding enough common ground to advance his cause, incrementally, if necessary, over a long period of time.
He did not have to do any of this, of course. He could easily have retired to the easy life of Hyannis Port, sailing and dabbling in high society. Instead, this scion of wealth and prep school privilege was a tireless advocate for issues affecting women, minorities and the working class. Though they affected him little personally, he fought to increase the minimum wage to a living wage, and hardest of all for universal health coverage. His vote and his political skill in this last and currently hottest battle will be sorely missed.
Last January, after the Barack Obama win in Iowa, the Hillary Clinton victory in New Hampshire and subsequent Obama's success in South Carolina, Ted and his niece Caroline passed the Kennedy mantle to Obama, all but designating him the fifth brother. It was an unmistakable signal to the nation that Sen. Clinton's assumed advantage with the Democratic establishment may not have been as solid as it seemed. When she shortly proved unable to shake the young Illinoisan's lead on Super Tuesday, Obama was on his march to the presidency.
Most of all, Ted Kennedy's life and death bookend fifty years when one family inspired millions in the world's leading country probably more than any other. Though his style may be inimitable and his legislative accomplishments many, the youngest brother's true contribution
may have been to the nation's conscience, such as when he said at his bother Bobby's funeral, "those of us who loved him pray that what he dreamed shall come to pass."
Or as he memorably concluded at the convention after losing his party's nomination for President in 1980, the assurance that win or lose, in good times and in bad, in a world of regular people contending against powers and interests seemingly intent on keeping them down and leaving them out of many of the benefits of the society they helped build, that they were not forgotten by all the power brokers. As Teddy assured them, "The dream will never die."
Ted was the youngest, fattest, and seemingly softest of the four sons of Joe and Rose Kennedy. He had a penchant for hedonism in some ways even beyond those of his older brothers. Yet with their untimely deaths he eventually pulled himself together, assumed the mantle of their service and came to surpass them in many important ways.
It is hard to believe that Teddy spent nearly as much time in the United States Senate as brothers Jack and Bobby lived. They joined eldest brother Joe, Jr., who died even younger flying for the Army Air Corps on a mission to take out a German V-1 rocket launching site in World War II.
They were meteors who flashed brilliantly across the public sky but were snuffed out decades too soon. He alone lived to the grayness of old age, and came to embrace the role of the incremental fight of advancing his cause by inches over the years. It was a role his early temperament did not seem suited for, but one he embraced and filled well. Today the accolades run the gamut from Al Sharpton and Howard Dean to John McCain and Nancy Reagan.
All seem to agree he was one of the last of a dying breed, the politician of conviction who could fight the good fight yet remain friends with his colleagues across the aisle. His ability to craft compromises on education, civil rights and health have been remarked upon by many of his colleagues and will be sorely missed. For though he was often vilified in earlier years by conservatives as the prototypical liberal bogeyman, he was paradoxically one who was better at the old-fashioned skill of finding enough common ground to advance his cause, incrementally, if necessary, over a long period of time.
He did not have to do any of this, of course. He could easily have retired to the easy life of Hyannis Port, sailing and dabbling in high society. Instead, this scion of wealth and prep school privilege was a tireless advocate for issues affecting women, minorities and the working class. Though they affected him little personally, he fought to increase the minimum wage to a living wage, and hardest of all for universal health coverage. His vote and his political skill in this last and currently hottest battle will be sorely missed.
Last January, after the Barack Obama win in Iowa, the Hillary Clinton victory in New Hampshire and subsequent Obama's success in South Carolina, Ted and his niece Caroline passed the Kennedy mantle to Obama, all but designating him the fifth brother. It was an unmistakable signal to the nation that Sen. Clinton's assumed advantage with the Democratic establishment may not have been as solid as it seemed. When she shortly proved unable to shake the young Illinoisan's lead on Super Tuesday, Obama was on his march to the presidency.
Most of all, Ted Kennedy's life and death bookend fifty years when one family inspired millions in the world's leading country probably more than any other. Though his style may be inimitable and his legislative accomplishments many, the youngest brother's true contribution
may have been to the nation's conscience, such as when he said at his bother Bobby's funeral, "those of us who loved him pray that what he dreamed shall come to pass."
Or as he memorably concluded at the convention after losing his party's nomination for President in 1980, the assurance that win or lose, in good times and in bad, in a world of regular people contending against powers and interests seemingly intent on keeping them down and leaving them out of many of the benefits of the society they helped build, that they were not forgotten by all the power brokers. As Teddy assured them, "The dream will never die."
Friday, August 21, 2009
Playing Politics with the Threat Level
The latest Bush Administration memoir, this one by the first Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, will soon come out with intimations of an effort by Administration heavyweights to raise the terrorism threat level on the eve of the 2004 election in an effort to arouse public fear and boost the President's re-election chances. Here you can see a synopsis in the New York Times, and go to the U.S. News & World Report "Washington Whisper" item that originally broke the story.
Sources say Ridge's soon-to-be-released book, The Test of our Times: America Under Siege and How We Can Be Safe Again, details strenuous efforts by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft to get Ridge to move the terror threat level up to "orange" the weekend before the November, 2004 election. This occurred despite unanimous opinion within the DHS that no intelligence existed to support such a finding, according to Ridge. He adds that the episode confirmed his inclination to resign immediately following the election rather than continue to be associated with those who played politics with the American people's security and fast and loose with the truth.
Ridge's book joins a growing list of tell-all revelations that have appeared from Bush Administration figures in the few months since he left office. Others have shed light on the case of the fired U.S. Attorneys, fabrications elucidated by former Press Secretary Scott McClellan and revelations that Ashcroft himself resisted pressure to approve unconstitutional actions from his sickbed in the hospital.
These confessions and accounts go far toward confirming what most on the left had been contending all along--that Bush and his team were a bunch of shamelessly manipulative liars who frequently subordinated constitutional and ethical standards to the exigencies of political gain. That is all to the good. But they also make me think about the tellers, too. It is well that the truth is finally getting out. It is something of note when men like Ridge and McClellan ostensibly give up insider positions of power as matters of conscience. But don't you wonder why they waited so long to come forward? They could have resigned and told their tales before the 2004 election. Perhaps a raft of these before the vote would have cost Bush a close election and saved the country from at least the last four years of W's misgovernance.
By coming clean, such figures act to assuage their consciences, add to the historical record and perhaps stand as cautionary examples to warn against the abuses of the future. But what they fell short of doing was acting with the complete integrity a democratic public must have in order to make an informed decision. The cold truth is that these men were more abettors than whistle blowers when it could have done the most good. And as a result, the whole nation suffered.
Sources say Ridge's soon-to-be-released book, The Test of our Times: America Under Siege and How We Can Be Safe Again, details strenuous efforts by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft to get Ridge to move the terror threat level up to "orange" the weekend before the November, 2004 election. This occurred despite unanimous opinion within the DHS that no intelligence existed to support such a finding, according to Ridge. He adds that the episode confirmed his inclination to resign immediately following the election rather than continue to be associated with those who played politics with the American people's security and fast and loose with the truth.
Ridge's book joins a growing list of tell-all revelations that have appeared from Bush Administration figures in the few months since he left office. Others have shed light on the case of the fired U.S. Attorneys, fabrications elucidated by former Press Secretary Scott McClellan and revelations that Ashcroft himself resisted pressure to approve unconstitutional actions from his sickbed in the hospital.
These confessions and accounts go far toward confirming what most on the left had been contending all along--that Bush and his team were a bunch of shamelessly manipulative liars who frequently subordinated constitutional and ethical standards to the exigencies of political gain. That is all to the good. But they also make me think about the tellers, too. It is well that the truth is finally getting out. It is something of note when men like Ridge and McClellan ostensibly give up insider positions of power as matters of conscience. But don't you wonder why they waited so long to come forward? They could have resigned and told their tales before the 2004 election. Perhaps a raft of these before the vote would have cost Bush a close election and saved the country from at least the last four years of W's misgovernance.
By coming clean, such figures act to assuage their consciences, add to the historical record and perhaps stand as cautionary examples to warn against the abuses of the future. But what they fell short of doing was acting with the complete integrity a democratic public must have in order to make an informed decision. The cold truth is that these men were more abettors than whistle blowers when it could have done the most good. And as a result, the whole nation suffered.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
After the Rise of China and India
A friend writes from India that the South Asian giant is anticipating a return to 7% economic growth this year, and that China forecasts the resumption of 10% growth rate. Europe and the U.S., in contrast, are hopeful their GDPs will drop less than 1%. The rest of the prognosis is that India and China will soon run the world politically and militarily, as leading world economic powers have been doing since the modern period began. These things are indeed possibilities, but countervailing trends also admit of other likelihoods too, particularly if one has been paying attention to recent history.
The spreading of manufacturing jobs to successive waves of low-wage countries has and will continue to lift millions of people in the world's poorest societies out of abject want. India and China will advance and increase their prosperity greatly in the few decades ahead, as Japan did in the 1960s and 1970s. That is, presuming environmental disaster does not overtake the biosphere as another couple of billion humans engaging in first world consumption patterns severely tax the ecological capacity of the planet.
But even if not, nations like China and India will probably suffer much of the same stagnation that has derailed Japan since the late 1980s. This will happen for two reasons. First, production will continue to get more automated, ruthlessly paring the factory jobs that have provided the bulk of working class employment there in the current boom.
Second, as their wages rise their labor forces will fall prey to industry's subsequent move to the next wave of rock-bottom wage countries, probably Latin America and then Africa, some 20 or 30 years hence. The process is inexorable given the reduction of trade barriers and the logic of business capital. The spotlight shines but briefly on a favored region. Like a line from All Quiet on the Western Front, "Forever isn't always a long time around here."
The spreading of manufacturing jobs to successive waves of low-wage countries has and will continue to lift millions of people in the world's poorest societies out of abject want. India and China will advance and increase their prosperity greatly in the few decades ahead, as Japan did in the 1960s and 1970s. That is, presuming environmental disaster does not overtake the biosphere as another couple of billion humans engaging in first world consumption patterns severely tax the ecological capacity of the planet.
But even if not, nations like China and India will probably suffer much of the same stagnation that has derailed Japan since the late 1980s. This will happen for two reasons. First, production will continue to get more automated, ruthlessly paring the factory jobs that have provided the bulk of working class employment there in the current boom.
Second, as their wages rise their labor forces will fall prey to industry's subsequent move to the next wave of rock-bottom wage countries, probably Latin America and then Africa, some 20 or 30 years hence. The process is inexorable given the reduction of trade barriers and the logic of business capital. The spotlight shines but briefly on a favored region. Like a line from All Quiet on the Western Front, "Forever isn't always a long time around here."
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Rules of Politics Still in Force
There is a lot of turmoil these days relating to the health care debate. The TV news is full of images of angry people mad at various aspects of reform ideas circulating in congress or from the White House. No doubt some part of it is composed of industry shills and no doubt some of the strident shouters' distrust of Obama stems from race. But proponents of humane reform who dismiss the entire display as either put-up phonies or racists do so at their peril. There is sincere doubt and real fear out there. The President and advocates of improving the system have to address these substantively in order to hold the middle and pass meaningful reform. Otherwise only an ineffectual window dressing bill will pass.
The first thing at work here is the body of American conservatism rousing itself. Some of the people shown on television are making emotional pleas to save the country from socialism. Others cite the fear of taxes and breaking the budget. Others speak of a broader set of grievances that include the end of school prayer, abortion, illegal immigrants (will they be covered?) and other such among the usual litany of conservative issues. These folks have begun shaking off the albatross of the failed Bush presidency and see the Democrats marching ahead on their agenda just as they said they would. The demoralization of defeat has given way to the determination to fight for their beliefs, threatened now as they have not been since early in the Clinton years. This is normal.
So between the conservative private citizens, the special interest publicity and the conservative media machine, the message is getting out. Most Americans know there are serious problems with the accelerating cost and lack of access for many to our health resources. They are open to positive change and reasonably generous about providing for the genuinely needy. But the great moderate middle is also wary of boondoggles. They want reform that works. The job of genuine conservative folks and their industry and ideological allies is to raise questions, or doubt and fear if you will. The job of progressives and the president, if they want real reform, is to dispel it. This isn't patty cake. It is the usual hardball politics when important interests are at stake.
Proponents of meaningful reform have two things going for them in this battle. One is the nature of the opposition and two is the need for change. First, there is a good chance the opposition is overplaying its hand with its rude, bullying tactics. Shouting down opponents and disrupting meetings in the long run may do their cause more harm than good. Recall that McCain and Palin's celebrity, socialism and communism campaign against Obama last fall fell flat. Obama spoke convincingly of the need to get past such politics and this time the negative campaigning did not work. The bullies will earn the contempt of many moderates.
Second, the opposition is, if you watch the video on it, overwhelmingly just what the Republican Party is: almost all white and disproportionally elderly. And their questions reveal an appalling ignorance and susceptibility to the most idiotically false rumors. Over and over they ask will the new bills pay for abortion, will old people be left to die, will their Medicare be taken away, will government take over all the hospitals, and so forth. The ease with which such concerns can be disproved to the objective and the open minded serves to discredit the opposition cause.
And finally, the need for some kind of strong correction is conceded by practically everyone. Not only are 47 million uninsured, but tens of millions more fear they will lose the coverage they have if they lose their job or their employer is unable to continue to pay the ever accelerating insurance rates. It's up to Obama and the Democratic leadership to show how their ideas will do this in a responsible, cost-effective and fair way. They have to get the policy right and they have to sell it right. That's how American politics works. Why would anyone think this time would be any different?
The first thing at work here is the body of American conservatism rousing itself. Some of the people shown on television are making emotional pleas to save the country from socialism. Others cite the fear of taxes and breaking the budget. Others speak of a broader set of grievances that include the end of school prayer, abortion, illegal immigrants (will they be covered?) and other such among the usual litany of conservative issues. These folks have begun shaking off the albatross of the failed Bush presidency and see the Democrats marching ahead on their agenda just as they said they would. The demoralization of defeat has given way to the determination to fight for their beliefs, threatened now as they have not been since early in the Clinton years. This is normal.
So between the conservative private citizens, the special interest publicity and the conservative media machine, the message is getting out. Most Americans know there are serious problems with the accelerating cost and lack of access for many to our health resources. They are open to positive change and reasonably generous about providing for the genuinely needy. But the great moderate middle is also wary of boondoggles. They want reform that works. The job of genuine conservative folks and their industry and ideological allies is to raise questions, or doubt and fear if you will. The job of progressives and the president, if they want real reform, is to dispel it. This isn't patty cake. It is the usual hardball politics when important interests are at stake.
Proponents of meaningful reform have two things going for them in this battle. One is the nature of the opposition and two is the need for change. First, there is a good chance the opposition is overplaying its hand with its rude, bullying tactics. Shouting down opponents and disrupting meetings in the long run may do their cause more harm than good. Recall that McCain and Palin's celebrity, socialism and communism campaign against Obama last fall fell flat. Obama spoke convincingly of the need to get past such politics and this time the negative campaigning did not work. The bullies will earn the contempt of many moderates.
Second, the opposition is, if you watch the video on it, overwhelmingly just what the Republican Party is: almost all white and disproportionally elderly. And their questions reveal an appalling ignorance and susceptibility to the most idiotically false rumors. Over and over they ask will the new bills pay for abortion, will old people be left to die, will their Medicare be taken away, will government take over all the hospitals, and so forth. The ease with which such concerns can be disproved to the objective and the open minded serves to discredit the opposition cause.
And finally, the need for some kind of strong correction is conceded by practically everyone. Not only are 47 million uninsured, but tens of millions more fear they will lose the coverage they have if they lose their job or their employer is unable to continue to pay the ever accelerating insurance rates. It's up to Obama and the Democratic leadership to show how their ideas will do this in a responsible, cost-effective and fair way. They have to get the policy right and they have to sell it right. That's how American politics works. Why would anyone think this time would be any different?
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Another Mass Murder
Another mass murder, this time in Pennsylvania. A man who had trouble getting girlfriends went into a fitness center and randomly shot twelve women, three of whom died, before turning the gun on himself. After a couple of days the story subsided. Ho hum, just another day in what passes for normal in the U.S.A.
I was interested to know how common this kind of thing is around the world. I mean, not counting war and terroristic murders perpetrated for some political end, are other societies having this kind of problem with homicidal individuals going over the edge and the American press just isn't reporting about it here, or what?
I googled the issue and it seems we really are in a class by ourselves in terms of serial and mass killers. The United States has 76% of these kinds of murders. We have 4.6% of the world's population but 76% of the world's deaths at the hands of maniacal murderers. Does that sound healthy to you? No, not to me either.
There seems to be precious little discussion about it. Some of the facts we know are that 90% of the killers are men and 68% of the victims female. Bob Herbert of the New York Times wrote an op-ed August 8 attributing much of the carnage to misogyny.
There is some evidence the problem is getting worse. Mark Kopta, psychology chair at the University of Evansville in Indiana, presented a paper on the topic at the recent Midwestern Psychological Association meeting in Chicago. Defining a mass killing as causing "the deaths of at least five people," including the killer's suicide when that is part of the toll he found only three such incidents from 1930 to 1970, three in the 1970s, ten in the 1980s, seventeen in the 1990s and 25 in the 2000s, which still have a year and a half to go. Six occurred in 2008 alone, and eight in a little over half a year so far in 2009.
You would think there would be a lot of interest in determining the cause or causes of such a development, but such does not appear to be the case. Economic and racial explanations do not seem to hold up. The mass killing rate was not high in the 1930s, for instance. It went up both in the 1990s when the economy was good and the 2000s when it was bad. In terms of race, 84% of the killers and 89% of their victims have been white.
Misogyny could be a factor. So could the ease with which mentally ill individuals can get their hands on weapons capable of killing many people. What about the prevalence of violence and the sexual exploitation of women in the entertainment media, including music, film, advertising and video gaming? Two common elements in the phenomenon are rage and firearms. As Dr. Kopta says, "Anger is the most seductive emotion of all. When people get angry, they don't want to stop being angry."
We as a society really ought to be talking about this. Behavior like this is extremely sick. Other societies are not experiencing it. That tends to indicate there is something seriously amiss here. Are there ways to better prevent such antisocial attitudes from developing and to identify individuals who are exhibiting the telltale signs, to get them the psychological help they need or to protect the rest of us from them? Or do we just shrug and accept is as the new normal? The answer to this question will say a lot about the state of American society these days.
I was interested to know how common this kind of thing is around the world. I mean, not counting war and terroristic murders perpetrated for some political end, are other societies having this kind of problem with homicidal individuals going over the edge and the American press just isn't reporting about it here, or what?
I googled the issue and it seems we really are in a class by ourselves in terms of serial and mass killers. The United States has 76% of these kinds of murders. We have 4.6% of the world's population but 76% of the world's deaths at the hands of maniacal murderers. Does that sound healthy to you? No, not to me either.
There seems to be precious little discussion about it. Some of the facts we know are that 90% of the killers are men and 68% of the victims female. Bob Herbert of the New York Times wrote an op-ed August 8 attributing much of the carnage to misogyny.
There is some evidence the problem is getting worse. Mark Kopta, psychology chair at the University of Evansville in Indiana, presented a paper on the topic at the recent Midwestern Psychological Association meeting in Chicago. Defining a mass killing as causing "the deaths of at least five people," including the killer's suicide when that is part of the toll he found only three such incidents from 1930 to 1970, three in the 1970s, ten in the 1980s, seventeen in the 1990s and 25 in the 2000s, which still have a year and a half to go. Six occurred in 2008 alone, and eight in a little over half a year so far in 2009.
You would think there would be a lot of interest in determining the cause or causes of such a development, but such does not appear to be the case. Economic and racial explanations do not seem to hold up. The mass killing rate was not high in the 1930s, for instance. It went up both in the 1990s when the economy was good and the 2000s when it was bad. In terms of race, 84% of the killers and 89% of their victims have been white.
Misogyny could be a factor. So could the ease with which mentally ill individuals can get their hands on weapons capable of killing many people. What about the prevalence of violence and the sexual exploitation of women in the entertainment media, including music, film, advertising and video gaming? Two common elements in the phenomenon are rage and firearms. As Dr. Kopta says, "Anger is the most seductive emotion of all. When people get angry, they don't want to stop being angry."
We as a society really ought to be talking about this. Behavior like this is extremely sick. Other societies are not experiencing it. That tends to indicate there is something seriously amiss here. Are there ways to better prevent such antisocial attitudes from developing and to identify individuals who are exhibiting the telltale signs, to get them the psychological help they need or to protect the rest of us from them? Or do we just shrug and accept is as the new normal? The answer to this question will say a lot about the state of American society these days.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Health Reform Hangs in the Balance
Battle lines are now firmly drawn over the fate of the health care initiative. Republican and industry opposition has coalesced. The unity moment in the White House featuring President Obama and moguls from insurance, HMOs and pharmaceuticals is revealed for the cover-providing photo-op it was. When congress reconvenes in September the nation will find out whether these allies will be successful again as they were in 1994. By shooting down health care the Republicans would stop the Obama administration in its tracks and likely set themselves up for good gains in the 2010 midterm election. For the industry's part, doing so would likely put a health overhaul on the back burner for another 15 years as it did after their last victory.
The industry lobbyists, in their joint appearance with Obama, were careful to announce they supported the president's idea that everyone should have health coverage-actually, that everyone should be required to buy it, guaranteeing them more customers. As it turns out of course, they disagree on everything else associated with the issue. They want to be able to pick and choose their customers. They want to be able to rescind coverage when people get too sick. They don't want cheaper drugs used. They want to be able to determine what will be covered and what will not. They do not want to have to compete with other private providers within regions or with a public alternative program.
The current strategy is to slow things down and raise questions about cost and "government control." Their greatest fear is that any program, once in place, will prove overwhelmingly popular with the public and hold the industry up to a tougher standard of competition. Look at the earlier public service agencies. Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal Congress instituted Social Security in 1935, and Republicans have been trying to end it ever since. Senator Robert Taft during the Eisenhower years, President Reagan in the 1980s and President Bush 43 in the 2000s attempted to discontinue, water down or privatize it. All ran into buzz saws of senior and general public opposition and were stymied. Social Security has become known as the "third rail of American politics." Like the electrified central rail of a subway system, touch it and you die.
President Johnson and the Great Society Congress passed Medicare in 1965. Ever since, all senior citizens have had medical coverage paid by the government that allows them to choose their own physicians and has minimal intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship. President Obama joked the other day that he gets letters, calls and emails every day now from senior citizens who plead with him to do two things: not institute a "government health plan" and also not to touch their medicare. The irony makes clear how pathetically they are being duped by the industry and its water carriers.
There is certainly a good deal of hypocrisy going on. Congress, of course, has long voted to cover itself with a government-provided health plan which allows each Member to choose his or her own physicians. And even neoconservative intellectual Bill Kristol, speaking on the Daily Show with John Stewart last week, said that the government-run health system for the military was superior to the civilian system and deserved because they were defending the country. Not much support for the argument of the alleged inferiority of taxpayer-funded health in either case. And, as Obama has been saying for two years, everyone who has private insurance and wants to keep it will be able to do so. These arguments do not stand up. They are transparent efforts to sow fear and protect profits.
Another consistent theme is the "what's the rush?" canard. The rush is that this idea was first proposed 62 years ago by President Truman, that the U.S ranks 37th in health care, just after Slovenia, that we spend 17% of GDP on health while the rest of the advanced world spends 11%, and that despite this their longevity and infant mortality are pulling away from ours. Another part of the rush is that when the Clinton health initiative was defeated in 1994 there were 38 million uninsured and 5% of health industry revenues went to overhead while today it is 49 million uninsured and 20% to overhead. The system continues to deteriorate. If the US spent just 11% of its $13 trillion GDP on health it would save $780 billion a year for other, more productive purposes.
To put things in perspective, on March 31, 2009 PBS Frontline reported that approximately 20,000 Americans die every year because they lack or have inadequate health coverage. When 3,000 died on 9/11 we suspended large portions of the Constitution and invaded Iraq. The health crisis is equivalent to more than six 9/11's every year. Yet the mantra of the comfortably ensconced is, "what's the rush?"
While congressional Republicans are ideologically in step with industry and largely bought by their campaign cash in any event, there are Democrats in their pay as well. With Democratic majorities of 80 in the House and 20 in the Senate, the fact that health care reform may be in trouble makes it plain that a number of them are drinking the kool aid too. See an ad here that crystallizes the issue with Nebraska's Democratic Senator Ben Nelson from the perspective of a small businessman. It also gives you an opportunity to help.
Eight months into the Obama presidency will either cement his place in history as one of the most successful of new administrations or will find him dead in the water, apparently impotent, and his political foes gleefully triumphant. Meanwhile the lives of thousands and the competitiveness of the American system hang in the balance. It will be a suspenseful few weeks.
The industry lobbyists, in their joint appearance with Obama, were careful to announce they supported the president's idea that everyone should have health coverage-actually, that everyone should be required to buy it, guaranteeing them more customers. As it turns out of course, they disagree on everything else associated with the issue. They want to be able to pick and choose their customers. They want to be able to rescind coverage when people get too sick. They don't want cheaper drugs used. They want to be able to determine what will be covered and what will not. They do not want to have to compete with other private providers within regions or with a public alternative program.
The current strategy is to slow things down and raise questions about cost and "government control." Their greatest fear is that any program, once in place, will prove overwhelmingly popular with the public and hold the industry up to a tougher standard of competition. Look at the earlier public service agencies. Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal Congress instituted Social Security in 1935, and Republicans have been trying to end it ever since. Senator Robert Taft during the Eisenhower years, President Reagan in the 1980s and President Bush 43 in the 2000s attempted to discontinue, water down or privatize it. All ran into buzz saws of senior and general public opposition and were stymied. Social Security has become known as the "third rail of American politics." Like the electrified central rail of a subway system, touch it and you die.
President Johnson and the Great Society Congress passed Medicare in 1965. Ever since, all senior citizens have had medical coverage paid by the government that allows them to choose their own physicians and has minimal intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship. President Obama joked the other day that he gets letters, calls and emails every day now from senior citizens who plead with him to do two things: not institute a "government health plan" and also not to touch their medicare. The irony makes clear how pathetically they are being duped by the industry and its water carriers.
There is certainly a good deal of hypocrisy going on. Congress, of course, has long voted to cover itself with a government-provided health plan which allows each Member to choose his or her own physicians. And even neoconservative intellectual Bill Kristol, speaking on the Daily Show with John Stewart last week, said that the government-run health system for the military was superior to the civilian system and deserved because they were defending the country. Not much support for the argument of the alleged inferiority of taxpayer-funded health in either case. And, as Obama has been saying for two years, everyone who has private insurance and wants to keep it will be able to do so. These arguments do not stand up. They are transparent efforts to sow fear and protect profits.
Another consistent theme is the "what's the rush?" canard. The rush is that this idea was first proposed 62 years ago by President Truman, that the U.S ranks 37th in health care, just after Slovenia, that we spend 17% of GDP on health while the rest of the advanced world spends 11%, and that despite this their longevity and infant mortality are pulling away from ours. Another part of the rush is that when the Clinton health initiative was defeated in 1994 there were 38 million uninsured and 5% of health industry revenues went to overhead while today it is 49 million uninsured and 20% to overhead. The system continues to deteriorate. If the US spent just 11% of its $13 trillion GDP on health it would save $780 billion a year for other, more productive purposes.
To put things in perspective, on March 31, 2009 PBS Frontline reported that approximately 20,000 Americans die every year because they lack or have inadequate health coverage. When 3,000 died on 9/11 we suspended large portions of the Constitution and invaded Iraq. The health crisis is equivalent to more than six 9/11's every year. Yet the mantra of the comfortably ensconced is, "what's the rush?"
While congressional Republicans are ideologically in step with industry and largely bought by their campaign cash in any event, there are Democrats in their pay as well. With Democratic majorities of 80 in the House and 20 in the Senate, the fact that health care reform may be in trouble makes it plain that a number of them are drinking the kool aid too. See an ad here that crystallizes the issue with Nebraska's Democratic Senator Ben Nelson from the perspective of a small businessman. It also gives you an opportunity to help.
Eight months into the Obama presidency will either cement his place in history as one of the most successful of new administrations or will find him dead in the water, apparently impotent, and his political foes gleefully triumphant. Meanwhile the lives of thousands and the competitiveness of the American system hang in the balance. It will be a suspenseful few weeks.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Cuts to Your Locality
For you California residents, here's an informative link to a source that will tell you how much the recent state budget resolution will be taking away from your locality. This Sacramento Bee database gives you the skinny. Find the name of your county in the drop down menu. It will show you how much the state is "borrowing" from the county, from all the cities in the county and from all other entities, primarily redevelopment agencies.
In my own case, for example, the county of Tulare will fork over $7.2 million to the state, the city of Visalia will yield up $1.9 million and the Visalia Redevelopment Agency will get raided for another $2.2 million. That works out to about $49 per Visalia resident the state of California is borrowing from local government. These reductions will mean big cuts to things like health, fire and law enforcement. That means, a lot of county and city employees will get laid off, adding to recessionary pressures and conditions in my own area and throughout the state. This is in addition to the state budget cuts in education, parks and throughout the system.
This is what happens when we are governed by the rule of the minority, as the California Constitution permits if legislative Republicans stick together as they did in this process. One friend of mine perceptively remarked that the Visigoths were the ones who pulled down Rome's libraries, schools and aqueducts and ushered in the Dark Ages. In the Golden State, however, we moderns are doing it to ourselves.
In my own case, for example, the county of Tulare will fork over $7.2 million to the state, the city of Visalia will yield up $1.9 million and the Visalia Redevelopment Agency will get raided for another $2.2 million. That works out to about $49 per Visalia resident the state of California is borrowing from local government. These reductions will mean big cuts to things like health, fire and law enforcement. That means, a lot of county and city employees will get laid off, adding to recessionary pressures and conditions in my own area and throughout the state. This is in addition to the state budget cuts in education, parks and throughout the system.
This is what happens when we are governed by the rule of the minority, as the California Constitution permits if legislative Republicans stick together as they did in this process. One friend of mine perceptively remarked that the Visigoths were the ones who pulled down Rome's libraries, schools and aqueducts and ushered in the Dark Ages. In the Golden State, however, we moderns are doing it to ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)