Public Option Becomes State Option?

The long and winding road to health reform took another turn today as Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced he had decided to include a public option in the bill he will take to the Senate, perhaps as early as next week. The key element that may make it acceptable to enough senators to merit consideration is including a provision allowing states to "opt out" of the public plan. For the Reuters story on this development click here, or check the Washington Post on it here.

The way this could work is like this: it takes 60 votes in the Senate, not to pass something but to close debate so they can vote whether to pass it or not. The 60 vote threshold is actually to permit an up or down vote that would only need a majority. Since the Democrats have exactly 60 votes it might be very difficult for any of them to vote with the Republicans to prevent a vote, especially if a Senator's home state could turn down the plan if it wanted to. Once a filibuster attempt was defeated by the 60 votes, then the plan itself could pass with 51 votes, or even 50, with Vice President Joe Biden voting to break a tie. There probably are not 60 votes for a health plan with the public option in the Senate, but there certainly are 50. There is even talk that perhaps only two or three Senators might be iffy on a plan with a public option if their state would have the right to turn it down. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana are among those mentioned.

Reid said that according to the prospective plan a state would have until 2014 to nix the arrangement. How that would happen remains a mystery. Would it be by majority vote of the state legislature, or some other means? And what kind of precedent would that set? We can go all the way back to 1828, when South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun made the case for "nullification" in his famous article Exposition and Protest, arguing that his state ought to have the authority not to enforce a federal tariff it disagreed with. President Andrew Jackson ended that controversy by threatening to invade the state and hang the nullifiers who would flout federal law.

One can imagine how the privilege of states being allowed to selectively scrap federal legislation unpopular within their borders would have operated in the South had it been incorporated into the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of the 1960s. Jim Crow would prevail there to this day had that been the case. It is a very, very dangerous precedent to set.

That being said, if politics is the "art of the possible" then this may be what makes progress on a bill that truly does something possible. Reid mentioned he "clearly" believes the bill would have "the support of my caucus." President Obama released a statement saying he was "pleased that the Senate has decided to include a public option for health coverage, in this case with an allowance for states to opt out."

Of course, the move might turn out to be one of the shrewdest ploys seen in the capitol in many a year. Once available, it is difficult to imagine many governors or legislatures in any but the most extreme right wing states denying their eligible citizens such a choice. It is remindful of the handful of Republican governors, all with apparent presidential ambitions at the time (Sanford of SC-there's that state again-, Pawlenty of MN, Palin of AK and Jindal of LA for instance) who tried to turn down part of the stimulus money this year but were overwhelmingly overruled by their own state legislatures in every case.

A couple of months ago my wife mentioned this possibility for the public option jokingly. "Why don't they pass it for the blue states and not for the red states?" she quipped. She then went on, "Of course then everybody would move out of those states to someplace they could get affordable health insurance." Exactly. It'll be a riot to see what happens next. As Lewis Carroll would have said, things just keep getting curioser and curioser.

Crime Foiled in First-Ever Technological Intervention: in Visalia!

Sometimes a town is remembered in history thanks to a seminal event. Kitty Hawk, North Carolina will forever be remembered as the site of the Wright brothers' first powered flight, Lexington, Massachusetts for the "shot heard 'round the world" and Lake Placid, New York for the "miracle on ice." Perhaps my town of Visalia, California will assume a similar position in the pantheon of remarkable events as the place where remote technology first stymied a carjacker. You can read the AP story on it here.

Jose Ruiz and his cousin were sitting in his 2009 Chevy Tahoe in a parking lot when a 21-year old man approached, leveled a shotgun at them and ordered them out. He had them empty their pockets. Then he got in the SUV and drove off.

Ruiz ran to a nearby pay phone and saw a sheriff's deputy on break who called Visalia police. Police spotted the truck a few miles down the road, and when they tried to flag it down the driver sped off at high speed. Little did he know that Ruiz was informing the cops he had OnStar for the vehicle. Once dispatchers got in touch with the OnStar operator and Ruiz gave his password, the remote service disabled the Tahoe's accelerator and it coasted to a stop.

The suspect fled into residential backyards in the dark, hopping over fences to elude police. The chase ended when he finally vaulted over a fence into a swimming pool and was quickly captured. "He wouldn't have pulled over if OnStar wouldn't have shut the vehicle down," commented Visalia police Sergeant Steve Phillips. The capability prevented a perilous high-speed pursuit that would have placed officers, innocent drivers and even the suspect himself in danger.

This was the first such incident of its kind but won't be the last. High technology kept people safe and helped take a threatening criminal off the streets. Score one for the future.

Michael Moore's "Capitalism"

I went to see Michael Moore's latest film, "Capitalism, A Love Story," last night. Like most of his films, it was an uneven but powerful mix of personal stories, history, ironic narration and community and personal action. You ought to get out and give it a look. Moore's thesis is split between two possible conclusions: that capitalism is either simply inherently immoral, or that it might be salvageable if the people democratically insist on making it work for them.

Moore begins by examining the constant drumbeat of propaganda for the American variant of capitalism, or at least the laissez-faire perspective on it. He then goes into the hypocrisy of companies that preached that principle but then when they got into trouble, turned to the regular taxpayers for hundreds of billions in bailout money. He spent a lot of time contrasting that with average families being evicted from their homes and farms on the principle of "let the buyer beware" free enterprise and predatory loans by the same financial institutions who took public money to overcome their own difficulties and used some of it to pay their executives (themselves) multi-million dollar bonuses.

Moore effectively went back in history to show his viewers a time, the 1950's and 60s, when marginal tax rates for the wealthy were as high as 90% and the standard of living for average working families and the provision of public amenities was generous. He played a speech from Franklin Roosevelt advocating the adoption of a "Second Bill of Rights" focusing on economic rights such as a good job at a liveable wage, a quality education, good affordable housing and health care for all, which would be accomplished, "after this war is finished." FDR died before the war ended, but Moore again points up the irony of how the American occupation administrations in the nations of our conquered enemies mandated all these provisions and democracy into the constitutions of Germany, Italy and Japan, and how the people of those nations have enjoyed these benefits as rights ever since, rights the people in the occupying power, the United States of America, do not enjoy for themselves.

Moore shows a few instances where people mobilizing together effect change for the good, such as a family backed by community organizers who refuse to vacate their home, and when the employees of Republic window and door faced down Bank of America and won. It is this kind of call for action Moore is openly championing by film's end. He even explores a financial industry document purportedly sent to major insiders saying that the gravy train for the rich will continue unless the bulk of the population uses their numbers to change the situation. The clear implication to the letter's well-heeled recipients is that that must never be allowed to happen. In many ways, Moore makes the point that the greedy few keep gaming the system so that they continue to gobble up a greater and greater share of the economy's output while the working and middle classes work harder and harder for a diminishing share. In many ways, his case is persuasive.

Moore wraps up rather theatrically, in his own inimitable style, with an appeal for the public to unite and take charge of their future by making the corporate, especially the financial industry, give the consumer a better break, be barred from arcane, non-productive and self-serving instruments such as derivatives and return a far greater proportion back to community purposes through heavier taxation. If you are a progressive you will enjoy the points and message of the movie. If you are not you know exactly what you will have to worry about in the next few years. Either way, it's definitely worth seeing.

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

News that President Barack Obama had been awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize for Peace stunned the world today. He has been in office less than nine months, leads a country involved in two ongoing wars and has yet to bring about the end of any of the world's many extant conflicts. His conservative political opponents in the United States derided the choice, ascribing it to his "star power," in the words of Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. Michael Binyon of the London Times called the decision "absurd" and a "mockery." See the NY Times account here.

Obama himself, in a brief Rose Garden statement, said, "To be honest, I do not feel I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize..." He said he was "surprised and humbled" by the award and would accept it as "a call to action" and an "affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations." So how are we to make sense of this?

We do that by taking a look at things from the perspective of the rest of the world. This choice was a sigh of relief on behalf of many in the world community. The world's most powerful nation had literally been frightening people of good will around the globe for several years. In a large sense the Committee's award was a repudiation of Obama's predecessor and the direction he was leading the United States and the world. What was the world community to make of the planet's erstwhile champion of rights and human values engaging in torture, "disappearing" suspects, scoffing at climate change, treating other nations with ill-disguised contempt, militarizing one problem after another, showing a smug and superior attitude in dealings even with its allies, refusing to even talk to those with whom it had disagreements, starting a war and justifying it by obvious lies and having a second in command who openly spoke of working "the dark side" in pursuit of his aims?

The Nobel Committee, in its statement, praised Obama for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," and said he had "created a new international climate." Committee Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland said, "The question we have to ask is who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world. And who has done more than Barack Obama?" He likened the selection to that of German Chancellor Willy Brandt in 1971 for his "Ostpolitik" diplomatic outreach to Communist-ruled Eastern Europe. The fall of Communism there was not to come for another eighteen years but the thaw may well have begun with Brandt's initiative.

Obama has ordered an end to torture, passed fuel efficiency and cap and trade legislation, offered an open hand to the Muslim world in June in Cairo, started talks with Iran and North Korea, begun winding down American involvement in Iraq, has taken steps with Russia on nuclear proliferation, speaking recently in Prague of "a world without nuclear weapons," brought China into the Korea talks, has begun an initiative in the Middle East and is reassessing U.S. policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan. As his recent election rival John McCain observed today, "I think part of their decision-making was expectations. And I'm sure the President understands that he now has even more to live up to."

The Nobel Committee is the latest to evidence what most of the world has felt about Obama from the start of his campaign, that his election would signal something very different and healthy in the psyche of the American populace and a commensurate positive change in the way his country was ready to relate to the world. He has not disappointed so far. Just think of where American diplomacy and the international climate were one year ago. And indeed, who has done more in the past year to foster world peace than Barack Obama? Obama has barely begun to scratch the surface in terms of bringing about international accord in his less than nine months in office. But he has restored the one indispensable element to getting it off the ground--hope. From where things stood a year ago, that in itself is an achievement to be celebrated.

Thinking Afghanistan Through

General Stanley McChrystal says the 21,000 additional troops dispatched to Afghanistan this year are not enough. He wants 40,000 more. President Barack Obama is conducting an overall review of Afghan policy. He wants clarification on what the mission is, what victory would look like, what the prospects truly are and what level of forces might be needed to accomplish whatever the mission is finally determined to be. Congress will shortly vote on another funding bill for Afghanistan. They are expected to pass it even though they are not sure how many troops they are funding nor what the mission or exit strategy might be. To say we appear confused about Afghanistan is an understatement. It's time for some clear thinking.

Let us consider the mission. What are we trying to accomplish there? Let's zero in on what is essential, and that is the defeat of the al Qaeda organization. Though there are many other considerations that seem to have gotten in the way and clouded the issue, that is the only plausible reason for us to be there. They are the organization that attacked us on 9/11, has spread mayhem on numerous other peoples around the world since and remain unalterably our implacable enemies.

No other mission there is worth more years, lives and resources. Whether the corrupt Karzai regime or one of the other figures or warlords runs Kabul is of little long term difference to us. The "no cut and run" argument is simply bullheaded, chest-thumping foolishness. Such thinking kept us in Vietnam five years and 35,000 American deaths longer than necessary, to no purpose. Even the prevention of a Taliban reinstatement is not necessarily a real concern of ours. As repugnant as they are with their subordination of women and close-minded intolerance as evidenced by their destruction of the Buddhist relics, they have never come after us outside their country. Humanitarian relief? Give me a break. To commit 60,000 and now a proposed 100,000 troops at $50-$100 billion a year for another eight or ten years so that we can invest $5 billion a year in development aid to a backward foreign country in civil war is beyond lunacy.

What is key to understand is whether they would invite or permit al Qaeda back into Afghanistan should we leave and the Taliban retake control. That is what our intelligence needs to discern. In Iraq, the resistance, including especially al Qaeda elements that entered Iraq after our invasion there, flourished as long as the Sunni tribes tolerated them and allowed them to operate in their tribal areas. Once the locals turned on them for their vicious excesses, their defeat was rapid and complete. In Afghanistan, which is much more cohesively tribal and localized than Iraq, this would be even more strongly the case.

Adding to this is the presence of nearby Pakistan. It is clear that al Qaeda is principally based across the border in Pakistan now. If the Pakistanis continue to prove reluctant or unable to eradicate al Qaeda on their side of the border (and it has been eight years, after all) it makes little difference what we do in Afghanistan. They will simply continue to base wherever they can operate. We can make things annoying for them by launching the occasional Predator strike against what we think is one of their safe houses, but that kind of campaign can never eliminate an entire movement, and to the extent we inevitably get some attacks wrong and kill innocents we merely play into their hands.

So it comes back to the Taliban's intentions. Have they, like the Iraqi resistance, come to the view that al Qaeda is a threat to their own power and a destabilizing factor that will bring undue Western wrath down on them if they are associated together? If so, we can begin leaving Afghanistan as soon as we can make the arrangements. If they have not, perhaps it is time to quietly begin letting them know our views on this, and quietly spreading some money around as we did to get the "Sunni awakening" underway in Iraq. Otherwise, we may be stuck in Afghanistan for a very, very long time in a classic exercise in futility.

Autumn Arrives

The grip of summer has finally loosened here in the San Joaquin Valley of Central California, and not a moment too soon. When it shifted it did so in a hurry. A high of 98 Tuesday ceded 20 degrees on Wednesday. When we moved here ten years ago we were told things cooled down noticeably from summer's baking heat in September. That was welcome since even though the summer is hotter here than we experienced in Southern California, the heat typically lasted longer down there. Ask anybody from Socal and they'll confirm September is the year's hottest month. Well, it seems like it was up here this year as well. Good riddance, say I! Enough is enough!

I was out in the backyard early this afternoon, enjoying the ambiance. Bluebirds flitted and twittered in the trees. It was pleasant to be out. The lounge chairs beckoned. A few flying insects made their busy rounds, fascinating in their concentrated activity, seemingly aware they had but little time to lose before their hour glass runs out. As I closed my eyes I could hear more birds here and there from all around the neighborhood, calling, flapping, fluttering, pecking, lifting off, landing, lighting, chirping, and generally doing all those sometimes calm and sometimes frenetic things birds are wont to spend their time doing when they're not merely perching in torpor trying not to raise their body temperatures.

I was refreshed by the inviting clime, the fragrance of potted flowers and pine, the greenery of the star jasmine hedge and the beckoning hazy hulks of the Sierras to the east under wispy cirrus dabs giving scenic contrast if little shade. All was right with nature and I had been invited back in. Blessed weeks of fall! May they last and linger, gladdening the heart until the chill and gloom of winter assume their sway.