The other night, I sat down and read anew the Constitution of the United States and its several amendments. I recommend such an exercise to everyone on some periodic basis (for example, www.usconstitution.net). Such a reading provides a good opportunity to refresh ourselves as to the original thinking, priorities, fears, and experiences that our Founding Fathers drew from in writing this fabulous document. Much of what is there would come as a profound shock to the Religious Right and neo-conservatives who continually shout about needing “strict constructionist judges who will “not make laws from the bench but will interpret the Constitution literally.” Because the Constitution ― and the Founding Fathers actions and statement at the time ― rarely support their pet concerns.
One major observation in my re-reading was that the word “God” exists nowhere in that document. Indeed, the closest one might get to that is the one instance of the word “Lord,” and that is only there in the context of defining the acceptance date of the document by the Constitutional Convention as the “Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.” Hardly a ringing marriage between our country and government and God; certainly a far cry from constituting America as a Christian Theocracy as some self-appointed spokespersons would claim. Further, the only two references to religion at all in the Constitution are in the negative:
· Article VI: “… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
· Amendment 1: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”
Pretty clear one thing they were worried about in 1787, huh?
Yet here we now are in the presidential election of 2008. The would-be election of the head of the American Church of State, if some would have their way. Just as with the Queen of England, who also serves as the head of the Church of England (Anglican Church) and with whom we fought a war to be free of such an investment of Church + State power. As some seek to declare a national religion for America, so apparently we must now also inaugurate a Presidential Pastor.
So we have seen:
· John McCain saying and acting in various ways to cozy up to newfound relationships with Religious Right people previously held at arm’s length disdain. None of it done too convincingly; as they say, “that dog just don’t hunt.” Cancel both principle and credibility.
· Mitt Romney, awkwardly trying to take a page from John Kennedy’s playbook with a “Pastor’s Meeting In Houston” to explain (diffuse) his Mormonism. Except that he only said the word Mormon once; he staged it within a blatant Madison Avenue marketing backdrop at the G.H.W.Bush library; he took no questions; he made a speech and left. Could have phoned it in. As was said about a prior Vice President, “[Mitt], you are no Jack Kennedy.”
· Mike Huckabee, the most avowed pastor-candidate, but failing to get much beyond the 30% vote that the Religious Right minority represents in national Republican party politics;
· Barack Obama, having to defend himself against unfounded gossip charges that he is secretly a Moslem, and having to prove his Protestant church history and membership;
· Hillary Clinton, against her desires and sense of good taste, being forced to discuss her Methodist upbringing, and how her religious faith and counsel from Rev. Billy Graham brought her through the trials of “life with Bill.”
All 20-odd presidential candidates this year have had to make some declaration of religious faith and affiliation in order to be a viable candidate. This in spite of our wise Constitutional prohibition that “… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Romney having to defend his Mormonism was a low point this year; Obama’s need to prove that he is not a Moslem is a similar travesty― and so what difference would it make if he was, except to the bigots for whom Islam = Terrorist = Kill America. And what will we do when a Jew is finally elected President: how will she conduct the annual Christmas Tree lighting service, and to whom will he send the White House Christmas Cards?
I frankly agree with all those who say “Go back to the Constitution.” But some should be careful what they ask for. That Constitution tells us explicitly to “butt out!”
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Welcome A New Country
This week, a new country bounded onto the world stage. Kosovo. An area of ethnic Albanians which has long struggled to assert its own identity. Previously a province of Yugoslavia until that country broke up, then a province of Serbia – neither of which was particularly accommodating to those people. Now it is on its own, a small but newly independent country.
Serbia is objecting to this unilateral declaration of independence. Russia and China are likewise objecting to recognizing this separation. But those two major powers admit that their objections are based upon their own fears of such a move potentially enticing similar separatist movements in their countries. Given all of the varieties of ethnic and religious groups that have been swallowed up by those countries over the course of their histories, it is likely an entirely valid concern. (Think Tibet in China; Chechnya in Russia.)
The Bush administration has encouraged Kosovo’s independence, and has moved quickly to recognize the new nation. Of course, as quickly as we paint Russia and China as being anti-freedom bad guys, we gloss over our own history regarding separation. An extremely costly war (both financially and in human life) was fought in this country 140+ years ago over whether a state(s) could opt out of the United States union. Slavery and economics created a deep national division in this country; the legality or not of succession created a civil war. The outcome of this war determined that, once in, no succession is allowed. It’s been a settled legal question for a century and a half, although the cultural divisions resulting from that war are still with us. Therefore we stand on somewhat shaky ground when we frequently encourage nationalistic separations around the world.
Except in Iraq. Here we continue to try stitch a country together that was created from yet another attempted intervention by post-World War I European powers to create a world map defined by their colonial histories and ambitions. Modern Iraq has existed only in the minds and force of successive despots, ending with Saddam Hussein. Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis are distinctive cultures, with their own histories of confrontation among themselves. The physical separation of these groups within Iraq has already happened through ethnic cleansing and a relocation of people into affinity enclaves.
Senator Joe Biden has long advocated a 3-region partition solution for Iraq. It is almost already in place now, with each group just waiting for our overdue departure to make it a formal reality. We should follow Senator Biden’s advice. Nations can be formed among people of mixed backgrounds where respect and shared values can be in place; witness this country over 300 years, though not without our periodic difficulties. But in the long run, nations cannot be built and sustained where there is no common aspiration, where a shared identity cannot be established around which to unify a people.
Serbia is objecting to this unilateral declaration of independence. Russia and China are likewise objecting to recognizing this separation. But those two major powers admit that their objections are based upon their own fears of such a move potentially enticing similar separatist movements in their countries. Given all of the varieties of ethnic and religious groups that have been swallowed up by those countries over the course of their histories, it is likely an entirely valid concern. (Think Tibet in China; Chechnya in Russia.)
The Bush administration has encouraged Kosovo’s independence, and has moved quickly to recognize the new nation. Of course, as quickly as we paint Russia and China as being anti-freedom bad guys, we gloss over our own history regarding separation. An extremely costly war (both financially and in human life) was fought in this country 140+ years ago over whether a state(s) could opt out of the United States union. Slavery and economics created a deep national division in this country; the legality or not of succession created a civil war. The outcome of this war determined that, once in, no succession is allowed. It’s been a settled legal question for a century and a half, although the cultural divisions resulting from that war are still with us. Therefore we stand on somewhat shaky ground when we frequently encourage nationalistic separations around the world.
Except in Iraq. Here we continue to try stitch a country together that was created from yet another attempted intervention by post-World War I European powers to create a world map defined by their colonial histories and ambitions. Modern Iraq has existed only in the minds and force of successive despots, ending with Saddam Hussein. Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis are distinctive cultures, with their own histories of confrontation among themselves. The physical separation of these groups within Iraq has already happened through ethnic cleansing and a relocation of people into affinity enclaves.
Senator Joe Biden has long advocated a 3-region partition solution for Iraq. It is almost already in place now, with each group just waiting for our overdue departure to make it a formal reality. We should follow Senator Biden’s advice. Nations can be formed among people of mixed backgrounds where respect and shared values can be in place; witness this country over 300 years, though not without our periodic difficulties. But in the long run, nations cannot be built and sustained where there is no common aspiration, where a shared identity cannot be established around which to unify a people.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Ode To Missed Perfection
Indulge me, please, in a more personal entry to this blog. It is late Tuesday evening, two days after the Super Bowl, where my New England Patriots lost to the New York Giants. And I remain in a funk that has not yet been shaken over this entirely unexpected outcome. So I must ask myself “Why?”
The Giants legitimately earned their victory. There was one key to their chance, which everyone acknowledged going in: for any chance to win, they had to stop the mega-talented New England quarterback, Tom Brady. And they did. They took the gamble no other team had attempted, and threw every defensive thing they had at the quarterback, risking being burned and defeated by “the one big play.” But they succeeded. Eli Manning may have been selected as the game’s MVP, but that was a mis-call. The MVP was the collective Giants defensive line, who rose to a challenge and pulled it off. They are where the accolades should go.
The Patriots deserved the win. But they were not able to earn it when they needed it. They deserved a better end to a spectacular season of record-setting performances. The awards and records will be there for awhile, deservedly so. But to end it with that particular loss, that particular way, seems so wrong. I cannot possibly imagine how those 50+ guys must still feel at this moment; how many “should haves” and “if onlys” have been replayed in their minds over and over. My own imagination has certainly been on continual replay these past days, and it wasn’t even my game to play. So I can only commiserate and empathize with their all too human feelings from a distance.
I think perhaps my personal unending attachment to this loss reflects my disappointment in seeing excellence, if not perfection, go unachieved. We collectively came so close to seeing something that has been significantly missing this past decade: a demonstration of excellence that is all too rare, and is done on a scale that is sharable by the collective many. Few opportunities present themselves for such uplifting reaffirmation of human potential. In my lifetime, there has been the “greatest generation’s” accomplishment in Europe and Asia in 1945; stepping onto the moon in 1969; the fall of the Berlin Wall; the end of apartheid in South Africa; the indelible image of one man standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square in Peking. Various moments in sports and the arts have enhanced our sense of shared culture, such as the Olympic hockey “miracle on ice” victory at a similar time of great emotional need in America. Moments not just of excellence achieved, of arriving at a place well beyond expectations, but doing so in a way that invites millions of people to share in it together. Tiger Woods is unarguably the greatest golfer today, perhaps ever, with a string of accomplishments; but millions of people are not joined in together watching him on the 18th green.
That is the opportunity we have missed. With all of the cash rewards and riches flying around some of us, we nevertheless live today in such a time of mediocrity, missed opportunity, minimalist goals and divisive ambitions. Yet every now and then something is needed to remind us how far human beings can reach in certain rare moments. We have need of that reminder these days; I am saddened that we did not get it. So we can only hope yet again, “wait until next year.” Even the Red Sox finally won, for all of us.
The Giants legitimately earned their victory. There was one key to their chance, which everyone acknowledged going in: for any chance to win, they had to stop the mega-talented New England quarterback, Tom Brady. And they did. They took the gamble no other team had attempted, and threw every defensive thing they had at the quarterback, risking being burned and defeated by “the one big play.” But they succeeded. Eli Manning may have been selected as the game’s MVP, but that was a mis-call. The MVP was the collective Giants defensive line, who rose to a challenge and pulled it off. They are where the accolades should go.
The Patriots deserved the win. But they were not able to earn it when they needed it. They deserved a better end to a spectacular season of record-setting performances. The awards and records will be there for awhile, deservedly so. But to end it with that particular loss, that particular way, seems so wrong. I cannot possibly imagine how those 50+ guys must still feel at this moment; how many “should haves” and “if onlys” have been replayed in their minds over and over. My own imagination has certainly been on continual replay these past days, and it wasn’t even my game to play. So I can only commiserate and empathize with their all too human feelings from a distance.
I think perhaps my personal unending attachment to this loss reflects my disappointment in seeing excellence, if not perfection, go unachieved. We collectively came so close to seeing something that has been significantly missing this past decade: a demonstration of excellence that is all too rare, and is done on a scale that is sharable by the collective many. Few opportunities present themselves for such uplifting reaffirmation of human potential. In my lifetime, there has been the “greatest generation’s” accomplishment in Europe and Asia in 1945; stepping onto the moon in 1969; the fall of the Berlin Wall; the end of apartheid in South Africa; the indelible image of one man standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square in Peking. Various moments in sports and the arts have enhanced our sense of shared culture, such as the Olympic hockey “miracle on ice” victory at a similar time of great emotional need in America. Moments not just of excellence achieved, of arriving at a place well beyond expectations, but doing so in a way that invites millions of people to share in it together. Tiger Woods is unarguably the greatest golfer today, perhaps ever, with a string of accomplishments; but millions of people are not joined in together watching him on the 18th green.
That is the opportunity we have missed. With all of the cash rewards and riches flying around some of us, we nevertheless live today in such a time of mediocrity, missed opportunity, minimalist goals and divisive ambitions. Yet every now and then something is needed to remind us how far human beings can reach in certain rare moments. We have need of that reminder these days; I am saddened that we did not get it. So we can only hope yet again, “wait until next year.” Even the Red Sox finally won, for all of us.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Buying The Presidency
Only slightly into this year’s primary voting, drama and surprises have certainly been a regular occurrence. The primary campaigns also continue to affirm what was predicted: this will be a protracted exercise involving an incredible amount of money. In amounts that many of us could think of as better applied to a host of other needs in this country.
Generally, my goal is to try to be as non-political as possible in this blog, especially as regards plugging or advocating any particular party or candidate. However, one candidate is particularly disturbing to me on the issue of campaign financing: Mitt Romney. Admittedly, there are many things this candidate says that concern me, but one is his continuing emphasis on presenting himself as the “businessman candidate.” From this basis, he promotes that he will bring an understanding of economics and a business/managerial style to his performance as President. In fact, what he really illustrates is the world of the pampered super-rich and overpaid business executive of today: overly slick, excessively wealthy, oblivious to the immoral vertical wage structure that has evolved in America, and freely buying his/her toys of indulgence. Except this time Mitt Romney’s toy is the U.S. presidency, and he’s buying that toy from all of us. And he will make his sale using statements of beliefs that are drawn from, and are no more credible than, a focus-group based Madison Avenue advertising campaign. Two points to observe:
1. Candidate Romney has constantly stressed that one of the chief reasons and benefits for voting for him as the Republican Party’s nominee is that he has the funds to see the whole race through. Maybe this sounds good at first hearing. But these funds he references are, of course, not the funds he has raised from Americans who support his views and candidacy. They are funds from his own bank account. As onerous as our whole campaign financing environment is today, it is at least premised on the idea that funds raised come from people who believe in and support you as a candidate; therefore dollars raised equals one form of measurable support and a statement of viability of a candidate. (Or, it is a measure of how many favors and advantages people expect you will throw their way if you are elected, but we’ll save that discussion to another day!) To ask people to vote for me, instead of McCain. Huckabee, or another candidate, simply because I have more personal money than they to make it through the primaries, is highly distasteful and reflects an incredible non-understanding of the governing role of the presidency. Mitt Romney does not ask us to “vote for me because you believe in my abilities and vision”; instead, vote for me because “I am the richest.”
2. It was recently revealed that Romney is signing up students to solicit donations to his campaign. That is what many candidates do to try to mobilize and captivate the young and energetic emerging voters in this country. Except that Mr. Romney seems to have once again added a new twist to that idea: he is paying such student fund-raisers a 10% commission if they raise at least $1,000 for him. AND they become eligible to win “cool prizes” based upon the level of their results. This is a brand new technique for getting campaign money and attracting student leaders to your cause, never before practiced by a presidential candidate. Don’t bother attracting people to your ideas and persona; just buy them! Mitt Romney’s presidential candidacy is now inventory for your small business!
Both of these instances, combined with other related episodes, reflects just how distorted a person’s perspective can get by ambition and an inflated ego that sees the world only through one’s own lens of experience. Being a successful businessman is to be complimented, I have no issue with that. Seeing elective office as an inherently deserved prize to that business success, or seeing leadership and government as just another business management job, reflects a very frightening view of politics, government, and leadership. Especially when you advertise that skewed view so blatantly.
We all understand that the last 50 years have come to treat the election of public officials as just another sales campaign at the grocery store; the presidency as a can of soup. I remain surprised that none of the presidential debates have so far been held at a local Super Wal-Mart (at least to this point!). The good news: the American people have so far continued to draw their votes from their hearts instead of their wallets. All of Romney’s dollars have so far yielded pitiful returns on investments vis-à-vis his competition. (Think Huckabee in Iowa, McCain in South Carolina and Florida.) For a management consultant and venture capitalist who claims to be the only real businessman in the race, the results of his business management and funding strategies do not seem to make an overly impressive case for hiring him.
Once again, God bless the common sense of Americans. Mitt Romney is not the first, nor will he be the last, to try to buy elective office through the largess of their wealth. Many such political wanna-bes have thankfully been consigned to a footnote in history. These business-success stories do not understand that Americans do not really want a business executive as President; they already have a “boss” that they have tolerate every day at work. Americans still like the underdog, still want to be moved by someone who can relate to them, and are still moved towards governmental leaders by the force of their ideals and the intangible of leadership, not by their bank account.
Generally, my goal is to try to be as non-political as possible in this blog, especially as regards plugging or advocating any particular party or candidate. However, one candidate is particularly disturbing to me on the issue of campaign financing: Mitt Romney. Admittedly, there are many things this candidate says that concern me, but one is his continuing emphasis on presenting himself as the “businessman candidate.” From this basis, he promotes that he will bring an understanding of economics and a business/managerial style to his performance as President. In fact, what he really illustrates is the world of the pampered super-rich and overpaid business executive of today: overly slick, excessively wealthy, oblivious to the immoral vertical wage structure that has evolved in America, and freely buying his/her toys of indulgence. Except this time Mitt Romney’s toy is the U.S. presidency, and he’s buying that toy from all of us. And he will make his sale using statements of beliefs that are drawn from, and are no more credible than, a focus-group based Madison Avenue advertising campaign. Two points to observe:
1. Candidate Romney has constantly stressed that one of the chief reasons and benefits for voting for him as the Republican Party’s nominee is that he has the funds to see the whole race through. Maybe this sounds good at first hearing. But these funds he references are, of course, not the funds he has raised from Americans who support his views and candidacy. They are funds from his own bank account. As onerous as our whole campaign financing environment is today, it is at least premised on the idea that funds raised come from people who believe in and support you as a candidate; therefore dollars raised equals one form of measurable support and a statement of viability of a candidate. (Or, it is a measure of how many favors and advantages people expect you will throw their way if you are elected, but we’ll save that discussion to another day!) To ask people to vote for me, instead of McCain. Huckabee, or another candidate, simply because I have more personal money than they to make it through the primaries, is highly distasteful and reflects an incredible non-understanding of the governing role of the presidency. Mitt Romney does not ask us to “vote for me because you believe in my abilities and vision”; instead, vote for me because “I am the richest.”
2. It was recently revealed that Romney is signing up students to solicit donations to his campaign. That is what many candidates do to try to mobilize and captivate the young and energetic emerging voters in this country. Except that Mr. Romney seems to have once again added a new twist to that idea: he is paying such student fund-raisers a 10% commission if they raise at least $1,000 for him. AND they become eligible to win “cool prizes” based upon the level of their results. This is a brand new technique for getting campaign money and attracting student leaders to your cause, never before practiced by a presidential candidate. Don’t bother attracting people to your ideas and persona; just buy them! Mitt Romney’s presidential candidacy is now inventory for your small business!
Both of these instances, combined with other related episodes, reflects just how distorted a person’s perspective can get by ambition and an inflated ego that sees the world only through one’s own lens of experience. Being a successful businessman is to be complimented, I have no issue with that. Seeing elective office as an inherently deserved prize to that business success, or seeing leadership and government as just another business management job, reflects a very frightening view of politics, government, and leadership. Especially when you advertise that skewed view so blatantly.
We all understand that the last 50 years have come to treat the election of public officials as just another sales campaign at the grocery store; the presidency as a can of soup. I remain surprised that none of the presidential debates have so far been held at a local Super Wal-Mart (at least to this point!). The good news: the American people have so far continued to draw their votes from their hearts instead of their wallets. All of Romney’s dollars have so far yielded pitiful returns on investments vis-à-vis his competition. (Think Huckabee in Iowa, McCain in South Carolina and Florida.) For a management consultant and venture capitalist who claims to be the only real businessman in the race, the results of his business management and funding strategies do not seem to make an overly impressive case for hiring him.
Once again, God bless the common sense of Americans. Mitt Romney is not the first, nor will he be the last, to try to buy elective office through the largess of their wealth. Many such political wanna-bes have thankfully been consigned to a footnote in history. These business-success stories do not understand that Americans do not really want a business executive as President; they already have a “boss” that they have tolerate every day at work. Americans still like the underdog, still want to be moved by someone who can relate to them, and are still moved towards governmental leaders by the force of their ideals and the intangible of leadership, not by their bank account.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
The $150B Christmas Tree
A few weeks back, President Bush and Congress were locked into yet another legislative confrontation. This time it was over finalizing the 2008 federal budget (already 3 months late). The fight centered on the usual what to spend federal dollars on, and who should pay the taxes to support that spending. But it was also on the total size of the spending. Bush’s veto threat was aimed squarely at holding total spending to stay within a specified limit to minimize any resulting deficit.
Fast forward to the end of January, 2008. A light bulb seems to have gone off in the White House (no doubt helped by lobbying assistance from major banks and other corporations) that, golly darn, we could soon have a recession! A recession primarily brought on by self-imposed wounds to the financial industry. Wounds caused by a few years of stupid and predatory mortgage lending to people who clearly could not maintain such mortgages over the long term. Apparently a planned bill to rescue troubled mortgagees that also lets the lending companies off the hook for their mistakes is not enough. Now the entire country has to come to the rescue of inept corporations.
So how do government leaders sell this to us? As is typical, by bribery. Here’s $600, $1200, or some such amount, along with some good old Republican tax breaks. Go out, feel good, and spend your way into economic recovery. And let’s do it to the tune of $150,000,000,000.00!
And where did this $150B magically come from? One month ago we had no money to insure more kids against sickness, no money to invest in our crumbling infrastructure, no new money to support many legitimate opportunities that could make a significant difference in this country’s future. Of course, there was still plenty of unaudited money to support our Iraq misadventure, and the number and amounts of earmarked dollars to special congressional constituents seems to be virtually unchanged. But all that was supposed to be it. All the money that was available. So did Santa Claus decide to make a second round of handling out free gifts?
No, this $150B comes from yet again more borrowing, more debt. It will be underwritten by prosperous foreign countries, the same ones making a financial fortune off of their one-sided sales to us. It is debt that will stagnate and never really be paid back. Yet more debt passed on to our kids, and more limits on future discretionary spending for this country.
Now the detailed questions start to arise on how we should best spend this newly-discovered “pool of wealth.” Republican and Democratic leaders for once are in agreement: send almost everyone a check. Even though everyone agrees that “fast action” is required to stave off this recession, and this approach won’t be felt economically until the end of the year. Conversely, virtually all economists agree that expanding food stamps and unemployment benefits could be effected immediately and have the greatest impact the quickest; but those populations are not significant blocks of voters. I am willing to leave a specific approach to the wisdom of others, but please do not pander to what you obviously consider my apparent stupidity.
Mike Huckabee came out recently with the smartest idea for spending $150B we didn’t know we had. Instead of a 1-time money for folks to buy gasoline from oil companies already flush with incomprehensible profits, invest that short-term money in something tangible that will pay long-term recurring dividends. Investments like a crash rebuilding of our roads or other public benefit projects. Remember FDR’s WPA project in the 1930s? Rather than handing out cash, he hired people to build and create, and to keep them employed. 70 years later, we still have many of the roads, post offices, courthouses, schools, national park facilities to show for this wisdom.
Instead, we are just going to sprinkle play money like fairy dust all around the country to try to numb people into thinking that these government leaders of both political parties are being responsive to the country’s needs. For many of us, this will simply enlarge our cynicism towards this government’s irresponsibility and its inability to think and act with intelligence and substance. It is simply cash as a feel good drug to mask the economic pain. Principles and common sense be dammed. Yet another avoidance of our collective personal responsibility that has hallmarked these last 7 years.
Fast forward to the end of January, 2008. A light bulb seems to have gone off in the White House (no doubt helped by lobbying assistance from major banks and other corporations) that, golly darn, we could soon have a recession! A recession primarily brought on by self-imposed wounds to the financial industry. Wounds caused by a few years of stupid and predatory mortgage lending to people who clearly could not maintain such mortgages over the long term. Apparently a planned bill to rescue troubled mortgagees that also lets the lending companies off the hook for their mistakes is not enough. Now the entire country has to come to the rescue of inept corporations.
So how do government leaders sell this to us? As is typical, by bribery. Here’s $600, $1200, or some such amount, along with some good old Republican tax breaks. Go out, feel good, and spend your way into economic recovery. And let’s do it to the tune of $150,000,000,000.00!
And where did this $150B magically come from? One month ago we had no money to insure more kids against sickness, no money to invest in our crumbling infrastructure, no new money to support many legitimate opportunities that could make a significant difference in this country’s future. Of course, there was still plenty of unaudited money to support our Iraq misadventure, and the number and amounts of earmarked dollars to special congressional constituents seems to be virtually unchanged. But all that was supposed to be it. All the money that was available. So did Santa Claus decide to make a second round of handling out free gifts?
No, this $150B comes from yet again more borrowing, more debt. It will be underwritten by prosperous foreign countries, the same ones making a financial fortune off of their one-sided sales to us. It is debt that will stagnate and never really be paid back. Yet more debt passed on to our kids, and more limits on future discretionary spending for this country.
Now the detailed questions start to arise on how we should best spend this newly-discovered “pool of wealth.” Republican and Democratic leaders for once are in agreement: send almost everyone a check. Even though everyone agrees that “fast action” is required to stave off this recession, and this approach won’t be felt economically until the end of the year. Conversely, virtually all economists agree that expanding food stamps and unemployment benefits could be effected immediately and have the greatest impact the quickest; but those populations are not significant blocks of voters. I am willing to leave a specific approach to the wisdom of others, but please do not pander to what you obviously consider my apparent stupidity.
Mike Huckabee came out recently with the smartest idea for spending $150B we didn’t know we had. Instead of a 1-time money for folks to buy gasoline from oil companies already flush with incomprehensible profits, invest that short-term money in something tangible that will pay long-term recurring dividends. Investments like a crash rebuilding of our roads or other public benefit projects. Remember FDR’s WPA project in the 1930s? Rather than handing out cash, he hired people to build and create, and to keep them employed. 70 years later, we still have many of the roads, post offices, courthouses, schools, national park facilities to show for this wisdom.
Instead, we are just going to sprinkle play money like fairy dust all around the country to try to numb people into thinking that these government leaders of both political parties are being responsive to the country’s needs. For many of us, this will simply enlarge our cynicism towards this government’s irresponsibility and its inability to think and act with intelligence and substance. It is simply cash as a feel good drug to mask the economic pain. Principles and common sense be dammed. Yet another avoidance of our collective personal responsibility that has hallmarked these last 7 years.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
The Politics of Health
One of the major issues in this year’s presidential election is about health care for Americans. Apparently all of the candidates are politically wise enough to agree that people who are sick should get medical attention. A few of those candidates are even wise enough to believe that preventing illness might be a better investment of health care resources than just treating the sick. But apparently that is about where agreement ends. HOW health care should be delivered seems to be a road traveled differently by each party and candidate.
It has been recommended that health care delivery should be evaluated against criteria of quality, access and coverage. Regarding quality, the US on the whole provides care backed with innovation and medical knowledge that is enviable throughout the world. But at the specific level, with individual doctors / hospitals / laboratories / support functions, it is clear that quality varies widely among geographic locations and among all sizes and types of facilities. We as individuals have minimal awareness of the quality and competency of medical services that we receive unless we go to a nationally recognized facility in the specialty of our illness. Part of that is because medical care is a closed industry. Failure rates, complaint histories, price, and comparative performance information is not available to the consumer/patient. Quality is a factor you only know about AFTER the work is done, which is often way too late. This inability to be “an informed consumer” of individual providers is the major flaw in those (particularly Republicans) who advocate “health care delivery by the free enterprise market.”
Which raises the access question: if quality is a variable and in fact often reflects a price tag, who is able to obtain medical care, much less has access to quality medical care? The estimate is that 48 million out of 300 million Americans have no health care. That should outrage each of us. Many of these are people who typically do not go for treatment except as a last resort. Even among those with coverage, day-to-day decisions are made about what care they can afford above the insurance reimbursement, or what life supports (food, shelter, heat, clothing) they must sacrifice to pay for medical expenses. So is quality care truly available to the public?
Regarding coverage, this is the quicksand beneath our feet. Whether or not you agree with his presentation tactics or his specific conclusions, Michael Moore’s “Sicko” movie correctly identified the very real and critical issue of insured Americans not adequately covered. Many of us walk around with our health insurance card in our pocket, believing we are protected from medical calamity. Until we find out otherwise, most often after we have received care. We face deductibles / copayments to be made, limitations on choices of doctors and/or treatments, disagreements of claims over “pre-existing conditions,” or ultimately the stamp of “Not Covered” on our claim form. Worse still are the people trapped in a bad job they cannot give up because they cannot transfer to a new job their employer-based insurance on which they depend.
It’s broken. And it is broken badly. And in this country of outlandish executive pay vis-à-vis worker pay, it is obscene that access to adequate medical care causes any debate at all. The Republicans raise the very old and tired bogeyman of “socialized medicine” when someone talks about government servicing all who need health services. They simply ignore the fact that government has been doing reasonably well (certainly no worse than the private sector) already servicing 8 million children, plus millions more senior citizens, millions of military veterans, and, oh yes, thousands of Congressmen and government officials. State and federal governments have long underwritten health care for a substantial portion of America, so let’s just give up on that scare phrase invented by the American Medical Association in the 1950s. Conversely, the Democrats see an expanded government role in health care, but they are so scared off by the Hillary Clinton reform disaster of the 1990s that they will only stick 1 or 2 toes in the water, keeping the rest of the leg high and dry. Could we please have some truly fresh “change” thinking here?
The two fatal flaws in our current concept of health care delivery are:
-Employer-Based Insurance: not everyone is an employee, so Bush’s tax credits are a nonsensical approach. Health care costs inflate business costs and reduce economic competition with the rest of the world. Employees now change jobs frequently but health coverage does not transcend the workplace.
-Health Insurance: buying insurance to cover your medical costs from someone for whom your needs are their costs and reduced profit is inherently a conflict of interest. You cannot reconcile these two differing objectives in a profit-based competitive marketplace. Especially if you offer insurance on a line-item, illness-by-illness basis. The resulting horror stories from this approach are legion. I insure my car against damage; I do not opt to insure my headlight versus door versus transmission versus motor. If medical insurance is going to be the approach, the industry should do its risk analysis and projections against aggregate total costs of the insured pool and parcel that out, like any other insurance. This is basic insurance 101.
We need to stop talking about how to make health insurance available to everyone. Because health insurance does not work and is not the answer. We need to start over and talk about how to make health SERVICES available to everyone. We need to get doctors and patients back together, while eliminating the incredible waste, inefficiencies and duplication that exist in today’s delivery systems. And you know what? This can be achieved if we focus on those two true objectives.
It has been recommended that health care delivery should be evaluated against criteria of quality, access and coverage. Regarding quality, the US on the whole provides care backed with innovation and medical knowledge that is enviable throughout the world. But at the specific level, with individual doctors / hospitals / laboratories / support functions, it is clear that quality varies widely among geographic locations and among all sizes and types of facilities. We as individuals have minimal awareness of the quality and competency of medical services that we receive unless we go to a nationally recognized facility in the specialty of our illness. Part of that is because medical care is a closed industry. Failure rates, complaint histories, price, and comparative performance information is not available to the consumer/patient. Quality is a factor you only know about AFTER the work is done, which is often way too late. This inability to be “an informed consumer” of individual providers is the major flaw in those (particularly Republicans) who advocate “health care delivery by the free enterprise market.”
Which raises the access question: if quality is a variable and in fact often reflects a price tag, who is able to obtain medical care, much less has access to quality medical care? The estimate is that 48 million out of 300 million Americans have no health care. That should outrage each of us. Many of these are people who typically do not go for treatment except as a last resort. Even among those with coverage, day-to-day decisions are made about what care they can afford above the insurance reimbursement, or what life supports (food, shelter, heat, clothing) they must sacrifice to pay for medical expenses. So is quality care truly available to the public?
Regarding coverage, this is the quicksand beneath our feet. Whether or not you agree with his presentation tactics or his specific conclusions, Michael Moore’s “Sicko” movie correctly identified the very real and critical issue of insured Americans not adequately covered. Many of us walk around with our health insurance card in our pocket, believing we are protected from medical calamity. Until we find out otherwise, most often after we have received care. We face deductibles / copayments to be made, limitations on choices of doctors and/or treatments, disagreements of claims over “pre-existing conditions,” or ultimately the stamp of “Not Covered” on our claim form. Worse still are the people trapped in a bad job they cannot give up because they cannot transfer to a new job their employer-based insurance on which they depend.
It’s broken. And it is broken badly. And in this country of outlandish executive pay vis-à-vis worker pay, it is obscene that access to adequate medical care causes any debate at all. The Republicans raise the very old and tired bogeyman of “socialized medicine” when someone talks about government servicing all who need health services. They simply ignore the fact that government has been doing reasonably well (certainly no worse than the private sector) already servicing 8 million children, plus millions more senior citizens, millions of military veterans, and, oh yes, thousands of Congressmen and government officials. State and federal governments have long underwritten health care for a substantial portion of America, so let’s just give up on that scare phrase invented by the American Medical Association in the 1950s. Conversely, the Democrats see an expanded government role in health care, but they are so scared off by the Hillary Clinton reform disaster of the 1990s that they will only stick 1 or 2 toes in the water, keeping the rest of the leg high and dry. Could we please have some truly fresh “change” thinking here?
The two fatal flaws in our current concept of health care delivery are:
-Employer-Based Insurance: not everyone is an employee, so Bush’s tax credits are a nonsensical approach. Health care costs inflate business costs and reduce economic competition with the rest of the world. Employees now change jobs frequently but health coverage does not transcend the workplace.
-Health Insurance: buying insurance to cover your medical costs from someone for whom your needs are their costs and reduced profit is inherently a conflict of interest. You cannot reconcile these two differing objectives in a profit-based competitive marketplace. Especially if you offer insurance on a line-item, illness-by-illness basis. The resulting horror stories from this approach are legion. I insure my car against damage; I do not opt to insure my headlight versus door versus transmission versus motor. If medical insurance is going to be the approach, the industry should do its risk analysis and projections against aggregate total costs of the insured pool and parcel that out, like any other insurance. This is basic insurance 101.
We need to stop talking about how to make health insurance available to everyone. Because health insurance does not work and is not the answer. We need to start over and talk about how to make health SERVICES available to everyone. We need to get doctors and patients back together, while eliminating the incredible waste, inefficiencies and duplication that exist in today’s delivery systems. And you know what? This can be achieved if we focus on those two true objectives.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Primary Preview
After an excessive year of pre-election campaigning by our presidential candidates, we are now down to the beginning of primary voting. The first six weeks of 2008 will be telling, and all will look very different as early as mid-February. Even though it is all happening way too soon and for too long, it will be good to start sorting out the current playbill. Hence some observations below about where a year of 2007 campaigning has brought us:
The Republican field is shallow and un-inspires its own base; it still sounds like “more of the same,” with many aspirants but no one winning the “Reagan mantle.” The Democratic field is strong on credentials with enthusiastic supports; in the end they will galvanize around their final candidate.
The major issues are: Iraq; the emerging economic downturn; illegal (and legal?) immigration; and health care. People’s determining factors: fear of terrorism; desire for change of direction; end to government paralysis and polarization; need for competence in government. The person who connects on these wins. And the candidates:
- Biden: has been very impressive in his foreign affairs expertise and overall
manner, but just hasn’t caught on as a viable president.
- Clinton: not “inevitable,” and has stumbled, but has shown she would be a
formidable candidate; still unclear if she can win over her negatives and
demonstrate “change” versus her obvious intelligence and competency.
- Dodd: an effective Connecticut senator, but never viable nationally as president.
- Edwards: dead-on right about the corporate give-aways of this decade; but may be
too strident for those Americans looking for reconciliation in government.
- Gravel: Too harsh to be heard, regardless of message; disappearing from view.
- Guliani: Biden described him best --- “a noun, a verb, and ‘9/11” is all he can
speak to; the politics of fear needs to end.
- Huckabee: wins the Republican right platform with the least scary version of their
cause, and fulfills my early prediction of being “the sleeper” candidate; but is
there any substance under the good-humored folksiness?
- Kucinich: Don Quixote still lives, with ideas that still need to be voiced; could
still be the Secretary of Peace that he espouses in another’s administration.
- McCain: has thankfully rediscovered his integrity, but probably too late.
- Obama: clearly the freshest voice, very natural, confident and genuine; has not
fully answered “the experience question,” if that is ultimately deemed truly
relevant.
- Paul: following a unique path and message , showing surprising resonance and
strength with a specific constituency.
- Richardson: a good governor, a future cabinet member; has never found a
presidential personality.
- Romney: Joe Klein (Time magazine writer) said it best: “Mitt Romney seems
incapable of finding an issue where integrity trumps expediency”; the plastic man
is following an all-image / no substance path, and we have had 7 years too much of
that already.
- Thompson (Fred): the man riding the Republican right white horse has been a
complete bust; the pickup truck never got out of the garage.
GONE: Brownback, Hunter, Tancredo, (Tommy) Thompson.
On January 3, 2008, it’s all still very much a toss-up.
The Republican field is shallow and un-inspires its own base; it still sounds like “more of the same,” with many aspirants but no one winning the “Reagan mantle.” The Democratic field is strong on credentials with enthusiastic supports; in the end they will galvanize around their final candidate.
The major issues are: Iraq; the emerging economic downturn; illegal (and legal?) immigration; and health care. People’s determining factors: fear of terrorism; desire for change of direction; end to government paralysis and polarization; need for competence in government. The person who connects on these wins. And the candidates:
- Biden: has been very impressive in his foreign affairs expertise and overall
manner, but just hasn’t caught on as a viable president.
- Clinton: not “inevitable,” and has stumbled, but has shown she would be a
formidable candidate; still unclear if she can win over her negatives and
demonstrate “change” versus her obvious intelligence and competency.
- Dodd: an effective Connecticut senator, but never viable nationally as president.
- Edwards: dead-on right about the corporate give-aways of this decade; but may be
too strident for those Americans looking for reconciliation in government.
- Gravel: Too harsh to be heard, regardless of message; disappearing from view.
- Guliani: Biden described him best --- “a noun, a verb, and ‘9/11” is all he can
speak to; the politics of fear needs to end.
- Huckabee: wins the Republican right platform with the least scary version of their
cause, and fulfills my early prediction of being “the sleeper” candidate; but is
there any substance under the good-humored folksiness?
- Kucinich: Don Quixote still lives, with ideas that still need to be voiced; could
still be the Secretary of Peace that he espouses in another’s administration.
- McCain: has thankfully rediscovered his integrity, but probably too late.
- Obama: clearly the freshest voice, very natural, confident and genuine; has not
fully answered “the experience question,” if that is ultimately deemed truly
relevant.
- Paul: following a unique path and message , showing surprising resonance and
strength with a specific constituency.
- Richardson: a good governor, a future cabinet member; has never found a
presidential personality.
- Romney: Joe Klein (Time magazine writer) said it best: “Mitt Romney seems
incapable of finding an issue where integrity trumps expediency”; the plastic man
is following an all-image / no substance path, and we have had 7 years too much of
that already.
- Thompson (Fred): the man riding the Republican right white horse has been a
complete bust; the pickup truck never got out of the garage.
GONE: Brownback, Hunter, Tancredo, (Tommy) Thompson.
On January 3, 2008, it’s all still very much a toss-up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)