Sunday, January 31, 2010
Recommended: Nightmare in the Middle East
Ralph Peters is one of the nation's foremost strategic military thinkers. His assessment of the Middle East in the January 31 article Nightmare in the Middle East in the New York Post isn't comforting reading, but it is probably as accurate as any assessment around.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Recommended: The Perot Option
I highly recommend David Brook's New York Times Op Ed piece from yesterday, January 29, entitled The Perot Option. In several recent posts I have recommended articles about the Tea Party movement, and suggested that while it is amateurish and relatively unorganized now, as soon as a charismatic leader emerges, it may well become a major force in the nation's politics. Brooks argues that we are ripe for a third party "Ross Perot" movement to ride the wave of public discontent and dismay at Washington politics, and that President Obama can either make himself into that figure, or be run over by whoever takes up that mantel - he would rather that it was Obama who took on the role.
Well worth reading and pondering.
Well worth reading and pondering.
Not true, Mr President…..
President Obama continues to make the claim that Republicans have not put forward viable alternatives to his (or rather, the House and Senate’s) health care plans. He made that claim in his State of the Union speech, and he repeated it in his meeting with Republicans yesterday. Not true, Mr President. There have been lots of sensible solutions offered. For example:
In August John Mackey put forward proposals in his Wall Street Journal article The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare. Here were his suggestions:
1) Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.
Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan's costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.
2) Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.
3) Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.
4) Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.
5) Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.
6) Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?
7) Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.
8) Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
In April, Ramesh Ponnuru, writing in the New York Times in a piece called The Misguided Quest for Universal Coverage, suggested two major reforms:
1) The moral case for universal coverage is that we have an obligation to see to it that the poor and the near-poor have access to good health care. But universal coverage is only one way of realizing that goal, and not necessarily the best one. For people with pre-existing health problems, for example, direct subsidies would probably be more efficient than rigging insurance markets to make sure they are covered.
2) An alternative approach would be to make it easier for people to buy insurance that isn’t tied to their employment. The existing tax break for employer-provided insurance could be replaced with a tax credit that applies to insurance purchased either inside or outside the workplace. At the same time, state mandates that require insurers to cover certain conditions, which make it expensive to offer individual policies, could be removed.
Books like Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It, by Michael Cannon, and Crisis of Abundance: Rethinking How We Pay for Health Care, by Arnold Kling are full of good ideas that don’t require trillions of taxpayer dollars and more federal bureaucracy.
It’s simply not true that there aren’t lots of alternatives to the current liberal health care plans. It is true that few of them propose massive government intervention, and many of them would impact the Democratic base (like trial lawyers and unions) and so perhaps that is why Speaker Pelosi isn’t interested in them.
In August John Mackey put forward proposals in his Wall Street Journal article The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare. Here were his suggestions:
1) Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.
Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan's costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.
2) Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.
3) Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.
4) Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.
5) Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.
6) Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?
7) Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.
8) Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
In April, Ramesh Ponnuru, writing in the New York Times in a piece called The Misguided Quest for Universal Coverage, suggested two major reforms:
1) The moral case for universal coverage is that we have an obligation to see to it that the poor and the near-poor have access to good health care. But universal coverage is only one way of realizing that goal, and not necessarily the best one. For people with pre-existing health problems, for example, direct subsidies would probably be more efficient than rigging insurance markets to make sure they are covered.
2) An alternative approach would be to make it easier for people to buy insurance that isn’t tied to their employment. The existing tax break for employer-provided insurance could be replaced with a tax credit that applies to insurance purchased either inside or outside the workplace. At the same time, state mandates that require insurers to cover certain conditions, which make it expensive to offer individual policies, could be removed.
Books like Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It, by Michael Cannon, and Crisis of Abundance: Rethinking How We Pay for Health Care, by Arnold Kling are full of good ideas that don’t require trillions of taxpayer dollars and more federal bureaucracy.
It’s simply not true that there aren’t lots of alternatives to the current liberal health care plans. It is true that few of them propose massive government intervention, and many of them would impact the Democratic base (like trial lawyers and unions) and so perhaps that is why Speaker Pelosi isn’t interested in them.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Another quote ......
"We also have the responsibility, if we can't find that common ground, to stand our ground on principles," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) yesterday, rejecting bipartisanship as a goal unto itself. "If we can't find a bipartisan way to do it, we are not going to say, 'Well, if it is not bipartisan, we are not going to do it.' We are going to do what we believe."
Translation: “It’s my way or the highway.”
No wonder the House wasn’t able to find any bipartisan common ground.
Translation: “It’s my way or the highway.”
No wonder the House wasn’t able to find any bipartisan common ground.
We need .....
From a Republican Congressman who likes President Obama, assessing the State of the Union speech: "To heal our country we need to get the arrogance out of the White House and the elitists out of the Congress. We need tough love. We need a real adult in the White House because we don't have adults in the Congress.", as quoted in The Wall Street Journal op-ed piece The Obama Contradiction, January 28, 2010. The rest of the article is worth reading too.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Recommended: The Movement, The rise of Tea Party Activism
I recommend Ben McGrath's piece The Movement, The rise of Tea Party activism, in the January 28, 2010 The New Yorker magazine. Thus far the Tea Party movement is just a bunch (but a BIG bunch) of noisy amateurs with popularist views. If (or more likely when) it gets a few professional leaders it is apt to become a very powerful force in America politics - perhaps THE most powerful force. It is worth paying attention to this movement. It may begin to shape politics as early as the upcoming midterm elections - indeed it may already have shaped the Democrat's recent defeat in Massachusetts.
Getting real
The Senate this week voted down a proposal co-sponsored by Senator Kent Conrad, (D. North Dakota), the chairman of the Budget Committee, and Senator Judd Gregg (R. New Hampshire), the committee’s senior Republican, to create a bipartisan commission (8 Republicans and 8 Democrats, plus two administration officials) that would recommend to Congress a package of deficit-reduction steps that Congress would have to vote on, and could not amend (eg. tinker with to give individual member’s supporters sweetheart deals or exemptions) .
It failed, 53 for and 46 against, because some Democrats were unwilling to be forced to face cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and some Republicans were unwilling to consider tax increases, both likely features of any effective deficit-reduction package.
This reflects the unwillingness of our Congressional representatives in both parties to get real and face the fact that something has to give in the face of the growing deficit. Either we raise taxes to increase the government’s income, or we cut spending to reduce the government’s expenditures, or more likely both. There is no free lunch.
President Obama proposes instead to create the commission by Executive Order, but unlike the original proposed commission, Congress won’t be required to give their recommendations an up-or-down vote, and will probably just ignore them as it has the recommendations of other Presidential Commissions (think of the 9/11 Commission, for example, most of whose recommendations have still not been implemented).
So what will it take for Congress to get real?
It failed, 53 for and 46 against, because some Democrats were unwilling to be forced to face cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and some Republicans were unwilling to consider tax increases, both likely features of any effective deficit-reduction package.
This reflects the unwillingness of our Congressional representatives in both parties to get real and face the fact that something has to give in the face of the growing deficit. Either we raise taxes to increase the government’s income, or we cut spending to reduce the government’s expenditures, or more likely both. There is no free lunch.
President Obama proposes instead to create the commission by Executive Order, but unlike the original proposed commission, Congress won’t be required to give their recommendations an up-or-down vote, and will probably just ignore them as it has the recommendations of other Presidential Commissions (think of the 9/11 Commission, for example, most of whose recommendations have still not been implemented).
So what will it take for Congress to get real?
An opportunity?
In the wake of President Obama's State of the Union speech, he goes to Baltimore next week to address the Republicans at their party retreat. The Republicans invited him, which is a sign that they are willing to explore working with him. And clearly he not only would like bipartisan support, but now needs it to move on his agenda.
The question is, will his party, especially the activist left, let him build a bipartisan coalition? To get Republicans on board, Democrats will have to give up some things they want, and accept some things they don't want. Democrats want more government involvement, Republicans want less. A bipartisan middle ground will involve a little more government but not a lot more - can liberals accept that?
Thus far the House hasn't been willing to do that, and the Senate didn't even try, leaving Republicans completely out of the (rather sordid) backroom dealing that went on to shape the Senate bill.
By now,of course, the Republicans are pretty bitter at the arrogance of the Democratic majority over the past year, so we may be past the point where a bipartisan reconciliation is possible. And certainly neither the House nor the Senate yet show any signs of changing their behavior, so it really comes down to President Obama. If he wants bipartisan support, he will not only have to court the Republicans, he will have to face off against the ultra-liberals in his own party who have no interest in giving anything up to the Republicans. Is he willing to do that? Is he capable of doing that. Is he, despite his rhetoric, really interested in doing that? Those are the questions.
The question is, will his party, especially the activist left, let him build a bipartisan coalition? To get Republicans on board, Democrats will have to give up some things they want, and accept some things they don't want. Democrats want more government involvement, Republicans want less. A bipartisan middle ground will involve a little more government but not a lot more - can liberals accept that?
Thus far the House hasn't been willing to do that, and the Senate didn't even try, leaving Republicans completely out of the (rather sordid) backroom dealing that went on to shape the Senate bill.
By now,of course, the Republicans are pretty bitter at the arrogance of the Democratic majority over the past year, so we may be past the point where a bipartisan reconciliation is possible. And certainly neither the House nor the Senate yet show any signs of changing their behavior, so it really comes down to President Obama. If he wants bipartisan support, he will not only have to court the Republicans, he will have to face off against the ultra-liberals in his own party who have no interest in giving anything up to the Republicans. Is he willing to do that? Is he capable of doing that. Is he, despite his rhetoric, really interested in doing that? Those are the questions.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
How adaptable is President Obama?
President Clinton got into trouble early in his first term by moving too far to the left (gays in the military, HilleryCare, etc), but was adaptable enough to quickly move back to the center by taking on some conservative causes as his own (welfare reform, etc), thus depriving the Republicans of much of their ammunition. Despite his personal foibles, he managed to have a fairly successful two terms thereafter.
President Obama has allowed his party in Congress to push too far to the left, which is why there is a growing uprising against the health care bill and soaring budget defects. So the question is, will he take command and pull his party, and his administration, back toward the center, or will he let the far left in Congress continue to ignore the voter discontent and ram health care through regardless. Clearly Nancy Pelosi, current leader of the far left in the House, is ignoring the voter discontent, arrogantly assuming that we need her health care plan whether we like it or not. Harry Reid, leader of the Senate, seems to be going along with her, though I don't think he is really as far left as she is.
If President Obama is adaptable enough, he could pull a Clinton and move back to the center. If he adopted some of the many Republican suggestions, such as adding tort reform to the health care bill and supporting importation of drugs from Canada, he might well be able to pass a health care bill with bipartison support. But can he do that, or is he to much of an ideologue to abandon his vision, or is he too weak to stand up to his party in Congress?
Clearly his staff has begun to realize that to the voters, the economy, especially jobs and the growing deficit, is much more important than health care reform, and he has begun to make some rhetorical gestures toward those issues, though so far he has done nothing substantive to address them. The "Middle Class Initiative" he just announced is more image than substance, as is the proposal to freeze the budgets of some agencies for three years (but not the ones consuming most of the budget).
It will be interesting to see if he can be as adaptable as President Clinton was, or whether he is too fixed in his views, or too weak to take on his party in Congress, to make the changes he needs to make.
President Obama has allowed his party in Congress to push too far to the left, which is why there is a growing uprising against the health care bill and soaring budget defects. So the question is, will he take command and pull his party, and his administration, back toward the center, or will he let the far left in Congress continue to ignore the voter discontent and ram health care through regardless. Clearly Nancy Pelosi, current leader of the far left in the House, is ignoring the voter discontent, arrogantly assuming that we need her health care plan whether we like it or not. Harry Reid, leader of the Senate, seems to be going along with her, though I don't think he is really as far left as she is.
If President Obama is adaptable enough, he could pull a Clinton and move back to the center. If he adopted some of the many Republican suggestions, such as adding tort reform to the health care bill and supporting importation of drugs from Canada, he might well be able to pass a health care bill with bipartison support. But can he do that, or is he to much of an ideologue to abandon his vision, or is he too weak to stand up to his party in Congress?
Clearly his staff has begun to realize that to the voters, the economy, especially jobs and the growing deficit, is much more important than health care reform, and he has begun to make some rhetorical gestures toward those issues, though so far he has done nothing substantive to address them. The "Middle Class Initiative" he just announced is more image than substance, as is the proposal to freeze the budgets of some agencies for three years (but not the ones consuming most of the budget).
It will be interesting to see if he can be as adaptable as President Clinton was, or whether he is too fixed in his views, or too weak to take on his party in Congress, to make the changes he needs to make.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Recommended: After the Massachusetts Massacre
Frank Rich's Op Ed piece After the Massachusetts Massacre in today's New York Times is worth reading. He argues that President Obama simply has not recognized, and not gotten out in front of the anger that is roiling the nation. Eloquent speeches and cute popularist sound bites about taking on the banks aren't going to cut it, Rich argues. Obama needs to show some real muscle, especially toward his own party in Congress, or he and the Democrats will continue to lose ground. There is more to his argument, but I can't do it real justice - read the article.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Recommended: What the Health-Care Debate Is Really All About
I recommend James Capretta's piece What the Health-Care Debate Is Really All About on the Public Discourse website. Underneath all the rancor there is, indeed, a fundamental philosophical split between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe in the power and wisdom of strong centralized government to manage almost all aspects of the nation's life. Conservatives distrust strong centralized government, and prefer to let free-market forces shape the nation. There are valid arguments on both sides, but in general I think history and the experience of other nations provides a stronger case for the conservative side under most circumstances.
At the root it is a matter of incentives. A free-market business has strong incentives to keep its customers happy. If it doesn't, it loses them and eventually goes out of business, overtaken by rivals who are better at the job. So a sort of Darwinian "natural selection" is always in operation, driving businesses toward better and more efficient performance, rewarding those that innovate successfully and eliminating those that cannot compete. Of course, sometime businesses game the system and distort the free market with cartels or other underhanded practices. But in general, the free market system is what has brought this nation to its position as the worlds foremost producer and innovator. European nations, which liberals seem to think are good models for their view of America, have in fact uniformly done less well economically. Truly centralized economies, such as those in Communist-era Russia and its satellites, have done miserably.
In contrast to a free-market system, government programs and government bureaucrats have no such incentives, no such "natural selection" forces driving them toward better performance. As a consequence government programs and services are almost always less efficient and less responsive to those they serve (as anyone who has had to deal with a Motor Vehicle Department lately already knows). Liberals like to point out that European-model health plans produce better results for less cost, and they are right. But they neglect to point out that people in such systems often wait months or years for a treatment that Americans can get in weeks, and are often unable to get access to expensive drugs or treatments that are available to Americans.
Our nation was founded by people who distrusted the big, centralized, overbearing governments they had experienced in Europe, and our government system was deliberately built to let the states retain as much power as possible, as a balance against big government. In a sense, this "states rights" approach mimics the free market, allowing the states freedom to all experiment with different systems. Ideas that work get copied by other states. Ideas that don't work (usually) eventually get dropped. We have eroded states rights steadily over the years, mostly under liberal pressure, and in general we are probably the worse for it.
At the root it is a matter of incentives. A free-market business has strong incentives to keep its customers happy. If it doesn't, it loses them and eventually goes out of business, overtaken by rivals who are better at the job. So a sort of Darwinian "natural selection" is always in operation, driving businesses toward better and more efficient performance, rewarding those that innovate successfully and eliminating those that cannot compete. Of course, sometime businesses game the system and distort the free market with cartels or other underhanded practices. But in general, the free market system is what has brought this nation to its position as the worlds foremost producer and innovator. European nations, which liberals seem to think are good models for their view of America, have in fact uniformly done less well economically. Truly centralized economies, such as those in Communist-era Russia and its satellites, have done miserably.
In contrast to a free-market system, government programs and government bureaucrats have no such incentives, no such "natural selection" forces driving them toward better performance. As a consequence government programs and services are almost always less efficient and less responsive to those they serve (as anyone who has had to deal with a Motor Vehicle Department lately already knows). Liberals like to point out that European-model health plans produce better results for less cost, and they are right. But they neglect to point out that people in such systems often wait months or years for a treatment that Americans can get in weeks, and are often unable to get access to expensive drugs or treatments that are available to Americans.
Our nation was founded by people who distrusted the big, centralized, overbearing governments they had experienced in Europe, and our government system was deliberately built to let the states retain as much power as possible, as a balance against big government. In a sense, this "states rights" approach mimics the free market, allowing the states freedom to all experiment with different systems. Ideas that work get copied by other states. Ideas that don't work (usually) eventually get dropped. We have eroded states rights steadily over the years, mostly under liberal pressure, and in general we are probably the worse for it.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Recommended: Politics in the Age of Distrust
As frequently happens, David Brooks in the New York Times has summed up the current health care situation wonderfully, in his piece today, Politics in the Age of Distrust. As he points out, this overweening hubris in Washington appears every four or eight years, with a new administration, and it always leads to an early disaster. This is Obama's version.
In fact, no major overhaul of a major part of American life should occur unless at least the moderates in both parties can come together in agreement (the political far left and far right will always be out of step).
In fact, no major overhaul of a major part of American life should occur unless at least the moderates in both parties can come together in agreement (the political far left and far right will always be out of step).
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Post-Brown comments
In the wake of the resounding Democratic defeat in Massachusetts there are, predictably, no end of commentators dissecting the defeat, mostly with a spin that conforms to their own political beliefs. Thus conservatives are sure this is the beginning of a tsunami that will sweep Democrats out of office, while liberals are equally sure that this was just a local problem with a bad candidate. Of the few relatively balanced comments I have read, I recommend Charles Lane's article Why it's so hard to pass health-care reform in the January 21, Washington Post.
Lane points out that the framers of the Constitution worried specifically about a powerful minority, or even an arrogant majority, imposing their will on the nation. Hence the cumbersome bicameral legislature, and the checks and balances between Congress, the President, and the judiciary. Hence also the emphasis on states rights. One might decry the 60-vote rule in the Senate, but in fact major, life-changing legislation ought to take more than a bare majority to pass. If one can't get 60% support for a measure, perhaps it shouldn't pass.
I also recommend Hubris is Ruining the Democrats by William Murchison on RealClearPolitics. It certainly is true that Washington politicians have come to see themselves almost as demi-gods, steering the nation from a lofty perch in the Capital Building. This applies equally to the Democrats in this administration as it did to the Republicans in the last administration. It was this hubris, I think, that led the current Congress to think it could ram through a sweeping health care bill with so little regard to voter opinion. If the angry town halls last summer didn't give enough warning of voter discontent, the recent polls should have. Yet for the most part the Congressional leadership ignored these indicators. If that isn't hubris in an elected official, I don't know what is.
Lane points out that the framers of the Constitution worried specifically about a powerful minority, or even an arrogant majority, imposing their will on the nation. Hence the cumbersome bicameral legislature, and the checks and balances between Congress, the President, and the judiciary. Hence also the emphasis on states rights. One might decry the 60-vote rule in the Senate, but in fact major, life-changing legislation ought to take more than a bare majority to pass. If one can't get 60% support for a measure, perhaps it shouldn't pass.
I also recommend Hubris is Ruining the Democrats by William Murchison on RealClearPolitics. It certainly is true that Washington politicians have come to see themselves almost as demi-gods, steering the nation from a lofty perch in the Capital Building. This applies equally to the Democrats in this administration as it did to the Republicans in the last administration. It was this hubris, I think, that led the current Congress to think it could ram through a sweeping health care bill with so little regard to voter opinion. If the angry town halls last summer didn't give enough warning of voter discontent, the recent polls should have. Yet for the most part the Congressional leadership ignored these indicators. If that isn't hubris in an elected official, I don't know what is.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Priorities again
On my January 1, 2010 posting I suggested that, had I been President on inauguration day, my highest priorities would have been:
1) Fix the economy as fast as possible
2) Fix the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
3) Deal with the ballooning national debt
4) Deal with the terrorist threat
I see that in the aftermath of the defeat in Massachusetts, Democrats are beginning to realize that perhaps they had their priorities wrong, and that priorities 1, 2, 3 and perhaps 4 are all Jobs, jobs, jobs, and jobs. To quote a past president, "Its about the economy, stupid!". It's not yet clear that Congress has heard the message, but it sounds like the president's staff is beginning to hear the message.
1) Fix the economy as fast as possible
2) Fix the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
3) Deal with the ballooning national debt
4) Deal with the terrorist threat
I see that in the aftermath of the defeat in Massachusetts, Democrats are beginning to realize that perhaps they had their priorities wrong, and that priorities 1, 2, 3 and perhaps 4 are all Jobs, jobs, jobs, and jobs. To quote a past president, "Its about the economy, stupid!". It's not yet clear that Congress has heard the message, but it sounds like the president's staff is beginning to hear the message.
Not to be overlooked....
In all the furor over the health care bill, one ought not to overlook the fact that it was not just the Republicans who are against it. In order to get the bill this far in the House and Senate, Pelosi and Reid have had to buy votes from reluctant Democrats with all sorts of extraordinary favors. We all know about the $300 million to buy the vote of Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, and Sen. Ben Nelson's deal that Nebraska, alone of all the states, wouldn't have to pay any additional Medicare costs. And we all know about the deal with labor unions to exempt their members from a tax that applies to all the rest of us. There are, according to commentators who have read all the way through the proposed bills, hundreds of similar "vote buying" deals buried in the legislation, though few as large and obvious as the examples above.
Moderate Democrats are still very worried about the true costs of the legislation (as opposed to all the fake "revenue neutral" projections being aired). Abortion rights supporters and abortion opponents are both unhappy with the current language. And there are perhaps a dozen other issues on which there is no agreement even among Democrats.
Pelosi and Reid will, of course, try to paper these difference over, and there are reports that even more sweetheart deals have been struck behind closed doors this week to try and get a bill that can pass (so much for President Obama's campaign pledge of transparent government). But when all is said and done, it is worth noting that even the Democratic majority isn't really happy with this bill, though they may be convinced to swallow their opposition and vote for it anyway under pressure from their leaders.
For a major piece of legislation that will profoundly change American life to be passed with such uncertain support, even from the party in power, is not a good sign.
Everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, agree that health care needs reform. It shouldn't be so hard to find moderate, incremental changes that could win bipartisan support without the need to arm-twisting and sweetheart deals. It would, of course, be far less change than the extreme left would like,and therein lies the problem, because at the moment the Democrats are being led by the extreme left, who show no inclination to compromise on anything.
Moderate Democrats are still very worried about the true costs of the legislation (as opposed to all the fake "revenue neutral" projections being aired). Abortion rights supporters and abortion opponents are both unhappy with the current language. And there are perhaps a dozen other issues on which there is no agreement even among Democrats.
Pelosi and Reid will, of course, try to paper these difference over, and there are reports that even more sweetheart deals have been struck behind closed doors this week to try and get a bill that can pass (so much for President Obama's campaign pledge of transparent government). But when all is said and done, it is worth noting that even the Democratic majority isn't really happy with this bill, though they may be convinced to swallow their opposition and vote for it anyway under pressure from their leaders.
For a major piece of legislation that will profoundly change American life to be passed with such uncertain support, even from the party in power, is not a good sign.
Everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, agree that health care needs reform. It shouldn't be so hard to find moderate, incremental changes that could win bipartisan support without the need to arm-twisting and sweetheart deals. It would, of course, be far less change than the extreme left would like,and therein lies the problem, because at the moment the Democrats are being led by the extreme left, who show no inclination to compromise on anything.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
So the interesting question is...
Now that we know that the Democrats lost Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts today, clearly because of discontent with the current health bill (since that was Brown's signature issue in this campaign), the interesting question is whether the Democratic Congress heard the message and will rethink the bill, or whether they are so committed to passage no matter what the public thinks that they will push ahead.
The smart thing to do would be to strip the bill down to the parts that have a broader, more bipartisan base of support, and settle for an incremental improvement rather than a wholesale liberal revolution. But Congress hasn't shown much tendency lately to do the smart things.
The smart thing to do would be to strip the bill down to the parts that have a broader, more bipartisan base of support, and settle for an incremental improvement rather than a wholesale liberal revolution. But Congress hasn't shown much tendency lately to do the smart things.
Recommended: U.S. Shifted Parties, Not Ideology
I recommend Geral Seib's article U.S. Shifted Parties, Not Ideology in today's Wall Street Journal. As he points out, polling data over recent years has shown almost no shift in American public ideology, despite the change in the party in power. America is basically a center-right nation, and has been for a long time. The Democrats mistake, he argues, was to interpret the last election as a liberal mandate, when instead it just reflected dissatisfaction with the previous Republican administration.
My read on the situation is that the Democrats have let their far-left liberal wing take over the party, and that this in the long run will hurt them just as much as the far-right has hurt the Republican party. Whichever party first realizes that the key to sustained power is capturing and holding the moderate political middle of the country will be the one that emerges best in the coming decades.
My read on the situation is that the Democrats have let their far-left liberal wing take over the party, and that this in the long run will hurt them just as much as the far-right has hurt the Republican party. Whichever party first realizes that the key to sustained power is capturing and holding the moderate political middle of the country will be the one that emerges best in the coming decades.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Recommended: The Tea Party Teens
Tomorrow Massachusetts is poised to either give Ted Kennedy's seat to a Republican, or at least give the Democrats a real scare. This is no doubt the result of the "inchoate anger" boiling up in the American populace, and most especially among the independents. In this light, David Brook's Op Ed piece The Tea Party Teens in the New York Times on January 5 is worth reading.
Brooks in not a supporter of the Tea Party movement, but he does think it has the potential to become a defining force in American politics very shortly, if it can successfully capture and channel all this rage in the populace.
Brooks in not a supporter of the Tea Party movement, but he does think it has the potential to become a defining force in American politics very shortly, if it can successfully capture and channel all this rage in the populace.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Recommended: Labor's $60 Billion Payoff
Politicians have always favored their supporters, all the way back to the days of Imperial Rome. But they used to at least have the decency to cloak their favoritism in some sort of high-minded rhetoric.
Not this Democratic administration. As if it weren't bad enough to nakedly buy the vote of the Nebraska Senator on the health care bill by promising to exempt Nebraska entirely from added Medicare costs (a promise that will be promptly tested in court by at least 12 other states if it becomes law), now the administration has just as brazenly bought labor support by exempting labor union members from a tax that will fall on all the rest of us.
I recommend the article Labor's $60 Billion Payoff in today's Wall Street Journal.
Unbelievable. The Republicans certainly haven't impressed me lately, but I'll glady vote enough Republicans back into Congress to at least put a stop to this shameless behavior by the administration. Clearly having a veto-proof majority of either party in Congress is a disaster.
Not this Democratic administration. As if it weren't bad enough to nakedly buy the vote of the Nebraska Senator on the health care bill by promising to exempt Nebraska entirely from added Medicare costs (a promise that will be promptly tested in court by at least 12 other states if it becomes law), now the administration has just as brazenly bought labor support by exempting labor union members from a tax that will fall on all the rest of us.
I recommend the article Labor's $60 Billion Payoff in today's Wall Street Journal.
Unbelievable. The Republicans certainly haven't impressed me lately, but I'll glady vote enough Republicans back into Congress to at least put a stop to this shameless behavior by the administration. Clearly having a veto-proof majority of either party in Congress is a disaster.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Quotation of the Day
I thought today's New York Times quotation of the day was pretty good:
"I’m a middle-of-the-road kind of guy. I want the Democrats out of my pocket and Republicans out of my bedroom. The one word I would use for what’s going on in Washington is embarrassing."
RON VAUGHN, who provides health insurance to his 60 employees at Argonaut Wine and Liquor in Denver.
"I’m a middle-of-the-road kind of guy. I want the Democrats out of my pocket and Republicans out of my bedroom. The one word I would use for what’s going on in Washington is embarrassing."
RON VAUGHN, who provides health insurance to his 60 employees at Argonaut Wine and Liquor in Denver.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Recommended: How America Can Rise Again
I continue to be impressed by the breadth and depth of the articles in The Atlantic magazine. The January issue has a number of good, thoughtful articles, but I especially recommend James Fallows' article How America Can Rise Again.
Fallows argues that the sense that America is failing or falling behind has been endemic in our society since the founding of the nation, or indeed even before, among the first colonists. One can look at almost any past decade and find much the same worries as are being expressed today. Yet America has not only survived, but prospered despite all these worries, and Fallows thinks this will continue, because of some fundamental features of American society. (Recall that George Friedman comes to much the same conclusion on the basis of geopolitics in his book "The Next 100 Years").
Fallows argues that in its own messy, democratic way our society is doing just fine, and a lot better than most other societies. He does, however, think our government has reached a level of terminal dysfunction, and is no longer adequate to the demands of the modern world. As he points out, the recent health care bill was assembled by Senators representing less than 10% of the nation's population, and a filibuster can be maintained by Senators representing as little as 12% of the nation's population -- hardly the way the nation's founders expected things to work.
This is a long and complex article, but well worth reading and pondering.
Fallows argues that the sense that America is failing or falling behind has been endemic in our society since the founding of the nation, or indeed even before, among the first colonists. One can look at almost any past decade and find much the same worries as are being expressed today. Yet America has not only survived, but prospered despite all these worries, and Fallows thinks this will continue, because of some fundamental features of American society. (Recall that George Friedman comes to much the same conclusion on the basis of geopolitics in his book "The Next 100 Years").
Fallows argues that in its own messy, democratic way our society is doing just fine, and a lot better than most other societies. He does, however, think our government has reached a level of terminal dysfunction, and is no longer adequate to the demands of the modern world. As he points out, the recent health care bill was assembled by Senators representing less than 10% of the nation's population, and a filibuster can be maintained by Senators representing as little as 12% of the nation's population -- hardly the way the nation's founders expected things to work.
This is a long and complex article, but well worth reading and pondering.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Recommended: “Do I have the right to refuse this search?”
As we all undergo even more intense screening procedures at airports, in the fond (if questionable) hope that the new procedures will be more effective than the old procedures at making our air travel safer, I thought readers might find the post Do I have the right to refuse this search?, by a retired police officer, of some interest.
As she notes, the process for selecting people for "secondary screening" seems random at best, and the "pat down" she was given when she refused the air-puffer machine was hardly effective.
I am reminded of a recent book on anti-terrorism I read, that pointed out that if an attacker got to the Uzi-toting agents surrounding the principle being guarded, the last line of defense, then the whole system had failed. The attacker should have been identified and taken out far earlier. It seems to me airline security is like that. If a terrorist reaches the TSA screening process, the whole system has already failed.
Of course, to take out terrorist early requires good human intelligence, double agents in place, watchers looking for people "casing" the site, effective passenger profiling, and a number of other quiet, difficult tasks. It's far easier and politically more popular to spend a lot of money for an obvious TSA presence at the airport than to put in place and maintain the far more effective, but far less visible measures that would make such screening the last line of defense, instead of the only line of defense.
As she notes, the process for selecting people for "secondary screening" seems random at best, and the "pat down" she was given when she refused the air-puffer machine was hardly effective.
I am reminded of a recent book on anti-terrorism I read, that pointed out that if an attacker got to the Uzi-toting agents surrounding the principle being guarded, the last line of defense, then the whole system had failed. The attacker should have been identified and taken out far earlier. It seems to me airline security is like that. If a terrorist reaches the TSA screening process, the whole system has already failed.
Of course, to take out terrorist early requires good human intelligence, double agents in place, watchers looking for people "casing" the site, effective passenger profiling, and a number of other quiet, difficult tasks. It's far easier and politically more popular to spend a lot of money for an obvious TSA presence at the airport than to put in place and maintain the far more effective, but far less visible measures that would make such screening the last line of defense, instead of the only line of defense.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Recommended: The 'Californiazation' of America
I highly recommend David Ignatius' piece in today's Washington Post, The 'Californiazation' of America. I think he is absolutely right that the federal government suffers from the same problem that many states suffer from - the irresistible temptation to buy votes with government programs while not owning up to the need to pay for them with taxes.
This is not a Republican or Democratic problem - it is a problem across our entire political spectrum.
Karl Marx had it right (for once): "Democracy is a form of government that cannot long survive, for as soon as the people learn that they have a voice in the fiscal policies of the government, they will move to vote for themselves all the money in the treasury, and bankrupt the nation."”
This is not a Republican or Democratic problem - it is a problem across our entire political spectrum.
Karl Marx had it right (for once): "Democracy is a form of government that cannot long survive, for as soon as the people learn that they have a voice in the fiscal policies of the government, they will move to vote for themselves all the money in the treasury, and bankrupt the nation."”
Friday, January 1, 2010
Recommended: The States and the Stimulus
They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Certainly our current economic hell was created by well-meaning intentions whose only problem was that they were economically unsound.
Now it turns out that the 2009 stimulus package, passed with great fanfare about “helping the states”, is in fact causing many states serious budget problems. For the details, read The States and the Stimulus: How a supposed boon has become a fiscal burden, in the Jan. 2, 2010 Wall Street Journal.
Now it turns out that the 2009 stimulus package, passed with great fanfare about “helping the states”, is in fact causing many states serious budget problems. For the details, read The States and the Stimulus: How a supposed boon has become a fiscal burden, in the Jan. 2, 2010 Wall Street Journal.
Priorities
Had I been in President Obama’s shoes on Inauguration Day, I would have thought my first priorities for the country, in priority order, would be:
1) Fix the economy as fast as possible
2) Fix the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
3) Deal with the ballooning national debt
4) Deal with the terrorist threat
Fixing the economy would have meant (a) preventing a wave of banks from going under (he did that), (b) get regulations in place to prevent a repeat of this problem (little has been done on that), and (c) get unemployment down as fast as possible (not much effective has been done here).
Fixing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have meant finding and selling an exit strategy for both wars, since the wars are accomplishing little, draining our economy, straining our military capacity, and essentially immobilizing our ability to react to new threats in other places – a fact not lost on nations like Iran, China, Russia and North Korea. Obama did finally promulgate a new strategy for Afghanistan (surge followed by quick withdrawal), but of the options he had, I think he chose a bad combination.
Dealing with the ballooning national debt requires reducing the size of government, raising taxes and reducing government expenditures. He has clearly ignored this issue entirely and let Congress run riot with new spending and enlarging government.
Dealing with the terrorist threat would mean implementing all the things the 9/11 commission urged, and that the previous administration ignored. Thus far, he has ignored them too, though this failed Christmas Day bombing attempt might galvanize him into action – we will see.
What President Obama apparently thought were his top priorities, at least judging from his actions thus far, were:
1) Pass a stimulus bill to prevent a deep depression (I agree with the priority, even though I think the implementation was flawed)
2) Pass a health care reform bill (that would have been perhaps 8th or 10th on my priority list)
3) Pass some sort of carbon cap bill to address global warming (Important issue, but not among my top 4 priorities)
4) Decide what to do in Afghanistan (right priority, though I think he came to the wrong answer)
What would your top 4 priorities for the nation have been on Inauguration Day 2009?
1) Fix the economy as fast as possible
2) Fix the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
3) Deal with the ballooning national debt
4) Deal with the terrorist threat
Fixing the economy would have meant (a) preventing a wave of banks from going under (he did that), (b) get regulations in place to prevent a repeat of this problem (little has been done on that), and (c) get unemployment down as fast as possible (not much effective has been done here).
Fixing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have meant finding and selling an exit strategy for both wars, since the wars are accomplishing little, draining our economy, straining our military capacity, and essentially immobilizing our ability to react to new threats in other places – a fact not lost on nations like Iran, China, Russia and North Korea. Obama did finally promulgate a new strategy for Afghanistan (surge followed by quick withdrawal), but of the options he had, I think he chose a bad combination.
Dealing with the ballooning national debt requires reducing the size of government, raising taxes and reducing government expenditures. He has clearly ignored this issue entirely and let Congress run riot with new spending and enlarging government.
Dealing with the terrorist threat would mean implementing all the things the 9/11 commission urged, and that the previous administration ignored. Thus far, he has ignored them too, though this failed Christmas Day bombing attempt might galvanize him into action – we will see.
What President Obama apparently thought were his top priorities, at least judging from his actions thus far, were:
1) Pass a stimulus bill to prevent a deep depression (I agree with the priority, even though I think the implementation was flawed)
2) Pass a health care reform bill (that would have been perhaps 8th or 10th on my priority list)
3) Pass some sort of carbon cap bill to address global warming (Important issue, but not among my top 4 priorities)
4) Decide what to do in Afghanistan (right priority, though I think he came to the wrong answer)
What would your top 4 priorities for the nation have been on Inauguration Day 2009?
Recommended: The Inheritance
David Sanger is the Washington correspondent for the New York Times and twice a winner of the Pulitzer Prize. He has been a Washington insider for many years. His new book, The Inheritance: The World Obama Confronts and the Challenges to American Power is an eye-opener to read, because it dissects many of the key events of the past decade in new ways, with new insights into how the key players thought and what they assumed.
This is not a book that will make you feel good about the Washington bureaucracy or political scene, Republican or Democratic. It is not a book that will increase your confidence that your government is doing the right things, or at least knows what it is doing. But it is a book that will give a taste of just how difficult and complex the nation's problems are today. As near as I can tell, Sanger is pretty even-handed politically, and just relates events as they occurred.
Well worth reading.
This is not a book that will make you feel good about the Washington bureaucracy or political scene, Republican or Democratic. It is not a book that will increase your confidence that your government is doing the right things, or at least knows what it is doing. But it is a book that will give a taste of just how difficult and complex the nation's problems are today. As near as I can tell, Sanger is pretty even-handed politically, and just relates events as they occurred.
Well worth reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
