Review of Salient Political Issues, December 2009 Edition

Greetings, readers. Please forgive me for my lack of writing over the last several weeks. We now have a 3-week old in the house (in addition to our 3 year old). Writing in complete sentences, much less holding a coherent thought in your head, is a bit difficult with the demands of diaper-changing and the constant entreaties of an attention-demanding child ringing in your ears.

There certainly has been a lot to talk about! Let’s a take look at a few things:

* Health care. I mention health care first even though I’m getting a little weary of the subject myself. That’s the problem in a lot of ways, though—the public is getting a bit weary and, combined with disinformation from the insurance companies and the Republicans’ iron wall of No—as in, no healthcare reform, no cooperation, no negotiation, no nothing do nothing neverness (more on that later)—health care reform (and health insurance reform) is sort of an up-and-down topic for most Americans, in the sense that support has bobbed up and down. Of course, it’s hard to blame people for having shifting opinions about health care, because the proposal is hard to nail down. Is there a public option? Is it “robust?” What the hell does that mean anyway?

I have discussed this topic at length. My opinions haven’t changed. Feel free to browse this blog’s history to learn what those are. (In a nutshell: 1. Health care insurance needs reform in a big way. And 2. It’s difficult to rally to the defense of a broken system, so (a) let’s change it and see how it goes, and (b) if you defend the current system you likely have a vested interest in it).

The only thing that has changed is that the Congressional Budget Office released a report generally endorsing the Obama Administration’s numbers about coverage, cost, and cost control. I was frankly a little surprised at that last bit. Other than that, nothing has changed. Just get it done and let’s move on to energy issues or something else.

* Speaking of energy issues, I hear there’s an important conference coming up. In Copenhagen, right? The world’s leading economies (and everybody else, but they really don’t matter on this issue) are meeting to see if they can hash out an agreement to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions before the world warms and we experience, as Thomas Friedman would call it, “global weirding”: strange and uncharacteristic weather patterns, cataclysmic events (a la hurricane Katrina), droughts, etc. Early returns are more hopeful than in recent years. Both China and India are more receptive to limits on their own emissions, as they are beginning to witness environmental degradation of their own environments and realize that they, according to most climate modeling, would be big losers in a warmer world (although truthfully no one really knows what will happen—aside from the polar ice caps melting out eventually and polar bears passing into history). The United States is led by a president that embraces the science of global warming, understands the concept of the “tragedy of the commons,” is not unduly beholden to oil and gas interests, and has made the “greening of America” a national priority (second to health care). Most leaders also see the rise of green power technology and cheap and clean energy production as the next great stimulant to global capitalism. The country that incentivizes its entrepreneurs to develop these technologies (and stay put) will benefit hugely in economic growth and prosperity. Incidentally, do you think that has anything to do with India and China suddenly showing great interest in things like solar and wind technology? (Examine with a Google search where many of these companies are going, and you will find that China is a leader… surprised? Don’t be. Just look at the tax incentives in this country for gas/oil versus alternative energy and compare it to China. We are no longer the leading innovators.)

Most of the news coming out says that no climate treaty will be agreed to at the conference, but there could be the beginnings of one. The problem may be that we will run into bad political timing. Will Democrats retain control of the Senate after next year? (Democrats who would approve such a treaty, that is, which means you can throw out any vote from Mary Landrieu of gas and oil rich Louisiana and others like her). I don’t know. It may be that action will be deferred as the unfortunate result of the political returns of an interim year during a time when the economy is bad. Perhaps this will have to wait until 2012 or even later. The problem, of course, is that time is running out on this issue—if it hasn’t already.

There is more to say about this, including discussion of the recent upsurge in denying the science of global warming (oh no! scientists sometimes don’t like each other personally and write about it in emails!) and alternative methods to cool the earth (artificial volcanic eruptions). But I save that for another post, perhaps when health care reform is finally “done” and we have moved on to other issues (please?).

* A brief word about (mostly) liberal Democrats’ intent or desire to use remaining TARP funds to fund, basically, spending on governmental programs to create jobs. I think that it is a horrible idea. It’s not that spending more to stimulate the economy and create jobs is necessarily such a horrible idea (though considering that supposedly 75% of the stimulus funds from earlier this year have yet to be spent, I am not certain that it is necessary), but the fact that the TARP funds were designated for a specific purpose—rescuing the financial system—which is not a spending program. If you want a spending program, put it in a bill and vote on it. Don’t try to find a way to re-interpret a law to other purposes. It’s just squirrelly.

The truth is, they couldn’t pass such a bill right now. Their motive is, I think, (mostly) sincere: They think that the funds are desperately needed to continue to encourage an economic recovery and create jobs. I’m sure it’s also not bad, from their perspective, to at least (hopefully) cause a job-creation trend before the mid-term elections. They think that they need the funds and are trying everything they can to get them. But sometimes, if you can’t do it honestly, even though you think it’s the right thing to do, you shouldn’t do it. In democratic governance, the ends do not justify the means. The means is everything.

* I can’t let Republicans off the hook, either. They are truly banking on a bad economy and a long, slow, painful recovery with no assistance from governmental policies and incentives, be they tax incentives or spending plans. (I’m sorry “let’s cut taxes” is too non-specific to count as policy. Republicans solution in 2002? Let’s cut taxes. 2003? Let’s cut taxes. 2006? Let’s cut taxes. 2009 and forward: horrible budget deficits. Shocker!) That might be a good strategy for 2010, because unemployment is likely to continue to be high. I don’t think it will be a good strategy for 2012, because the economy will likely improve. In addition, if the Republicans do regain power in one or both houses of Congress, they’ll have to—gasp—actually come up with real ideas. It will be interesting to see if the short-term strategy is converted in the medium and long term. It will also be interesting to see if, should the economy improve in 2011 and forward, Democrats can successfully point to policies enacted in 2009 and 2010 under their leadership to punish Republicans.

We’ll see.

That’s it for now. (Notably—I have little to say about Afghanistan at this time. In a nutshell: Hate that we’re still there, seems like most security experts think we need to be there, willing to give Obama’s strategy a bit of time.) I make no promises about frequency of posting in the future, because to do so would be disingenuous. A belated Happy Thanksgiving and, should I not post beforehand, Merry Xmas and Happy New Year!

Flawed Health Care Logic

Previously, I wrote about some misconceptions about health care reform. Some of them continue to be perpetrated with impunity (or, at least, with no shame), but there are couple of new arguments that are not really misconceptions but sort of intentionally superficial treatments of the subject. Because I am tired of shouting into air whenever I read about them—as is my wife—I set them down here. No guarantees to those around me that I won’t continue to randomly pop off exasperated remarks or roll my eyes, though.

Restrictions on Liberty

First, there is the argument that the requirement that all Americans get health care insurance of some kind restricts our liberty. “Don’t tread on me!” and all that. Again, I have written about this before, particularly in discussing the auto liability insurance requirement analogy.

The problem with the knee-jerk “it restricts our liberty” argument is that the question is not whether or not such a requirement restricts our freedom to make choices generally—of course it does—but whether it unfairly limits our freedom or restricts our liberty in a holistic sense. We have all kinds of restrictions on liberties—I can’t drive as fast as I want, or burn my trash in my yard, or shout “fire” in a theater, etc. etc. The question is, is this particular restriction justified or fair? Or, to phrase it differently, if I and others are required to get health care insurance, is that restriction on our collective liberty outweighed by the resulting limitation on our economic choices? I.e., if a bunch of people don’t have health insurance, go get treatment, can’t pay for it, and then I have to pay for it with high health insurance premiums and charges for health care, then I will have less money to buy things or give money to others.

So, the facial argument “you’re restricting my liberty” is almost entirely without substance. The question, “does it unfairly restrict liberty (or, is net collective liberty decreased)?” is the relevant inquiry.

(And to forestall any objections by my philosophical readers—yes, I understand I am simplifying Rawls and Mill here, but I’m not trying to write a treatise about freedom and liberty, okay???)
As I said, I’ve discussed this before, and I believe that this particular restriction of liberty is correct and fair and results in greater collective liberty. If I have to buy automobile insurance to drive around, then having to buy health insurance to use the health care system is reasonable and justified.

The other thing I wanted to mention, though, is that the other logical option that we could opt for as a society—and the true libertarians should agree with this (revealing I think the difficulty with being a true libertarian)—is just not to treat people who can’t pay for health care. If you don’t have health insurance, too bad. You get hurt, you took the risk, and now you’ll just have to die. Currently, under the law, ERs of hospitals must treat all persons, whether they have insurance or have a demonstrated ability to foot the bill or not. Additionally, doctors regard it as unethical not to treat someone in need (though I have my doubts about some doctors’ views on this subject).

I think that would be a perverse and immoral system. Hence, I think the only moral option is to make people pay for some of these bills who would not ordinarily—to mandate health care insurance. I think also, though, that minimal health care insurance has to be affordable. Result: government involvement in some respect.

Illegal Immigrants

No illegal immigrants will be covered under any of the health care reform proposals before Congress. This particular fact was underscored when the Republican Congressman shouted “you lie” during Obama’s address to Congress.

And more’s the pity. Because somewhere between ¼ and 1/3 of the people who show up without insurance at ERs are illegal immigrants. That means that while the passage of a health care reform bill would address some of the problem, we will all STILL be paying artificially inflated prices for insurance and treatment, because hospital ERs will still be treating a veritable horde of people essentially for free. (For all kinds of things—diabetes, heart issues, acute injuries, pneumonia, etc.) Again, we only have one logical choice: let ‘em die or address the problem. And again, I feel it would be horribly immoral to take the “let ‘em die” approach.

Let’s not leave the illegal immigrant health care problem in expensive limbo—we should get them in the system somehow and make them foot some of the bill and get preventive care.

Unfortunately, doing anything that looks like it benefits illegal immigrants in any way is toxic politically. I just wish one politician would take a principled stand here, speak up, and address it. Instead, we’re going to get a halfway system that might suffer adverse consequences and criticisms precisely because there will be this additional built-in cost.

Closing Thoughts

I never thought I would have written and talked so much about health care reform. It was never one of my favorite topics or one that I even considered all that interesting. But the “debate” surrounding health care reform (coupled with some personal experience of the health care system over the last couple of years) has truly revealed for me the nature and extent of the problems in health care and in politics in general. There is so much crap out there that it’s hard to even smell the sunshine. Since I founded this blog on the basis that I would attempt to present the “truth” as well as I could discern it, it is impossible to avoid commenting about the subject.

I am ready to move onto the next debate, however! Whenever we get there...

Too Many Things to Talk About!

So, earlier this week I thought I would write yet another blurb about healthcare, given the president’s address to Congress last Wednesday. Then, I read a report about campaign finance reform and the U.S. Supreme Court’s scrutiny of over a hundred years of jurisprudence concerning corporations’ ability to contribute money to campaigns and thought I would write about that. And THEN I read about how medical malpractice reform is cited by some as a key component of cutting health care costs. And again I read about protestors converging on Washington to protest… pretty much Washington itself. (Funniest thing about the article I read about the protest this morning was the difference in the estimated size—the principal organizer referenced “1.5 million people.” The AP and other organizations (not affiliated with the organizers) estimated “tens of thousands.” That’s quite an exaggeration! I think I spot a pattern here…)

So, I’ll take these one-by-one and offer up a few quick observations:

Medical Malpractice Reform

I was frankly a bit dismayed to hear Obama reference medical malpractice reform as an idea from the Republicans that could be incorporated into health care reform, ostensibly to control costs. Typically, when you hear “medical malpractice reform” that means hard-line caps on damages in lawsuits, a sort of brutal slapdown to people who’ve been hurt in my opinion. Such caps are appealing to people who don’t understand the legal system, because there seems to be a simple one-to-one connection: hey, let’s limit recoveries on these lawsuits, and insurance rates for doctors will go down, and maybe costs will go down, too. There are *so* many problems with hard caps on recoveries that it is sometimes difficult to sit down and talk through them all.

The first and I think biggest problem that non-lawyers don’t understand is that caps on damages don’t limit frivolous lawsuits. Frivolous lawsuits don’t go to trial and don’t end up with a big judgment. They get dismissed by a judge on a pretrial motion. Or, if there is enough doubt to go to trial, a jury reviews the evidence and determines whether or not a doctor has committed negligence—that is, screwed up and hurt someone really badly. Thus, a hard cap only limits damages for people who got really hurt as a result of a serious infraction on the part of a doctor, nurse, hospital, etc. E.g., to take the easiest example, “whoops, we amputated the wrong arm! Sorry, we’ll just have to go in there and cut off the right one tomorrow. Too bad you’ll be armless, but hey, mistakes happen, right?” (And yes, this does really happen).

But wait, you say—okay, maybe you don’t say, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that you did—aren’t these caps only on “pain and suffering” damages? Sometimes. That’s the current proposal from some in Congress. You could still get some damages for loss of lifetime income. But let’s take an example where that is not going to help. Let’s say that as a result of a doctor’s negligence, you lose an arm. Ouch! If you’re a high-caliber pianist, you’re likely to get a serious lifetime income award. But what if you’re a financial analyst? Or a customer service rep? It might be inconvenient to you to do your job one-armed, but no one would seriously argue that you couldn’t do it or that it’s going to seriously limit you in your career. You’re not likely to get much for that.

Doesn’t that seem wrong? Seems wrong to me. If someone cuts of someone’s arm (or kills someone, say), there should be financial recourse for that.

Second, does limiting recoveries in medical malpractice cases actually lower health care costs? The assumption is that those savings would be passed along to consumers. It’s also assumed that doctors would no longer practice “defensive medicine,” ordering unnecessary tests and treatments. Sounds reasonable. The problem is, there is no data to back up these claims. In fact, the most recent study I could find cites that medical malpractice premiums represent one-half of one percent (0.5%) of total health care costs in this country. That seems a fair price to pay for legitimately injured people to have some kind of recovery and peace of mind. It also confirms what I’ve understood based on reading I’ve done over the years: premiums have more to do with prevailing interest rates (as a result of insurance companies being big financial companies nowadays) than they do with lawsuits. This just proves that sometimes you have to look deeper, that the intuitive, simple “logical” link is not always the right one.

There is much more to say about this topic, but I’ve got other things on my mind. I hope I’ve at least created a little doubt in the minds of those who think that doctor’s negligence damages caps are the holy grail to controlling health care costs.

Healthcare Reform in General

A couple of months ago, I suggested that the best way to reform healthcare would be to separate the unholy union between heath care insurance and the provision of health care, push insurers back to providing insurance rather than health care plans and require everyone to get catastrophic health care insurance (among other things). I recognized then as I recognize now that it is simply not politically expedient to tell all of America that we are completely blowing up the health care system that you know. You couldn’t change things that dramatically; i.e., you had to be able to say, as Obama said, “if you’ve got your employer-provided health care plan, there will be no change, you can keep it.”

But he did go with the mandate idea and used the same analogy I did: the analogy to automobile liability insurance. (Not that I claim any ownership of the analogy; and, in fact, it serves to show the efficacy of the comparison, because it is so obvious). I think it’s a great analogy, though it’s not perfect, obviously: driving a car is something that you can choose not to do (of course, outside of the northeast, forget it! This is America, we drive cars!). It’s also not a “right,” in the sense that health care is or may be (I’m not going to discuss this concept, but my inclination is that it is a right). But it provides an excellent justification for the mandate. The seat belt law is another good analogy—yes, you give up the “freedom” of being stupid and driving without a seat belt, but your liberty is infringed upon because the cost that saddles the rest of society is too great. Politicians have been so afraid to discuss the requirement of obtaining insurance, but the example is right there for us. I’m happy that Obama showed the grit to lay it out there.

It Was the Supreme Court, Stupid!

Remember the 2004 presidential campaign? There was sort of a sense of low expectations for both candidates from the perspective of what the individuals themselves would do in the office of president. The race became more about the “issues” (or did until Kerry was swift-boated). On one side, you had neo-conservatives playing up the fear of terrorism and, in this writer’s opinion, intentionally conflating the war in Iraq with 9/11. On the other side, you had growing skepticism of the reasons for the war and the foundation and trustworthiness of the sources suggesting the imminent production and use of WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). On one side you had the typical social conservative overweening concern with right-to-life issues, while on the other side you had right-to-choice issues and stem cell research (though that became a bigger deal in 2006). People did not see either candidate for the presidency as an inspirational leader, generally. The argument can be made that the better spin doctors won that election. But that is another topic (and one that I discussed briefly earlier this year when Obama was sworn in).

“It’s the Supreme Court, Stupid!!!” Remember that slogan? A prominent issue was the thought that the next (or same) president would appoint one and possibly two Supreme Court justices. That thought was borne out when Rehnquist was replaced by Roberts and O’Connor by Alito. The replacement of Rehnquist by Roberts as Chief Justice has been considered an ideological wash, though it is still a bit early in Roberts’ jurisprudence to say whether he is more or less conservative than Rehnquist or more or less prone to respect precedent (viz., more or less “activist”). But clearly the replacement of Sandra Day O’Connor, a straight down the middle centrist, with a true conservative in Samuel Alito (together with Antonin Scalia, called without affection “Scalito”) is a difference-maker and one that will last for quite a while, because the next justices to be replaced will be older liberals. Most of the focus of the shift to the right on the Court was on abortion, but we may be about to see a major ruling occur soon on campaign finance reform. Three of the Justices (Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy) are on record as saying they would be willing to reverse a law dating back over a hundred years preventing corporations from donating to political campaigns. The two who will apparently decide whether to overrule the established law will be the two new appointees. Most consider that Alito has made his mind up already, but some wonder whether Roberts, who prefers to rule narrowly, will be willing to sign a sweeping opinion.

I personally think it would be a poor result to allow corporations to donate to campaigns. We are a nation of people, not corporations. Corporations can’t vote and are driven by the single-minded concern of profit for their shareholders. Let’s leave it to human beings to make laws and consider notions of fairness, rights, and more communal concerns like, say, defense and the environment. Don’t corporations already have enough power?

In Conclusion

I was actually going to talk a little bit more about the protestors and seek to deconstruct the virulent anti-Obama movement, but I think that is a bit of a long conversation. It combines parts of a general upset about the state of the economy and unemployment, desperation in one’s own personal life, touches on racism in some cases, and in general is one of those open-ended discursive debates that merits a full discussion in a different entry. If I feel the urge.

Local Racial Politicking: Alive and Well in Atlanta

For this newest entry in our blog, we need look no further than our own fine city of Atlanta, where, this year, a new mayor will be elected in the fall. Some, like me, view this is a chance to get new leadership in the door—to break a power structure that has thrived on cronyism for a long time; to get someone in the mayor’s office who can fix the budget; who can address a recent and disturbing property crime increase; to ensure a water supply for residents, since Lake Lanier is being taken away; and to promote the city in a real way. (The current mayor has been kind of a mixed bag. She’s leaving us all with a faint feeling of disappointment, possibly as a result of very high expectations.)

In fact, things have been trending in the direction of a break from the old guard—which has frightened a group calling itself the “Black Leadership Forum,” which recently disseminated a message written by two Clark Atlanta University political science professors espousing the “Black point of view.” Apparently, the black agenda is—not to put too fine a point on it—all about making sure a white mayoral candidate (of which there is only one) is not elected mayor. Never mind the issues—the important thing is that the mayor is black. Period.

I’m not joking. The link is here.

What’s more, when the authors—the two Clark Atlanta professors—were revealed, they refused to acknowledge that there was anything wrong about what they wrote. Here’s a quote from their joint statement:

The recent suggestion that it is somehow racist to highlight an agenda that promotes the interests of African American voters is patently false. It is a red herring that polarizes debate about electing the most qualified candidate for Atlanta’s next mayor.

The need for African American voter and taxpayer interests to be addressed by all candidates is just as legitimate as it is for candidates to respond to issues raised by the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, Georgia Stand-Up, Central Atlanta Progress or any Neighborhood Planning Unit (NPU). . . We stand by our belief that “a black agenda would enable African American interests to be respected by any administration.” The interests of African American voters are just as legitimate as other Atlanta voters, and the notion that we must apologize for highlighting those interests is absurd.

* * *

Dear Esteemed Professors:

I urge you to set aside your vested political interests for a moment for the sake of progressive racial relations, intellectual honesty, and decency. What you have said is tantamount to what a lot of white people said in the ‘50s and ‘60s. It is racism, pure and simple. You may glean this from a simple exercise: substitute the word “white” for the word “black” and the words “Aryan American” for the words “African American” in your message. Read it back. Think hard. Swallow hard. Then apologize.

Here’s an example:

Original:

“1. The view that the times are too serious to stand on the sidelines is absolutely correct from the perspective of a black mayor at all cost. In fact, if a white candidate were to win the 2009 mayoral race, it would be just as significant in political terms as Maynard Jackson’s victory in 1973.”

becomes:

“1. The view that the times are too serious to stand on the sidelines is absolutely correct from the perspective of a white mayor at all cost. In fact, if a black candidate were to win the 2009 mayoral race, it would be just as significant in political terms as [analogy fails here—but really gosh darn significant].”

I ask you this: what would your reaction have been to a leaked memo promoting “white interests," a “white mayor at all costs” agenda, and the promotion of a unified “white” front in order to tank any and all black candidates? More than charges of racism, which would be true, wouldn’t the greater charge be that such an agenda misses the point? We’ve got a lot of problems in this city. We don’t need another one—racial tension.

Also, please do not confuse a “black agenda” with your own entrenched political interests—you call the government of the city from 1973 on—and these are your own words—a “Machine.” Well, maybe it’s time for this particular political machine to be traded in—cash for clunkers. It’s time for a new political order in the city, a not exactly post-racial order but one that is not driven by race, but by solutions to problems.

I voted for Barack Obama (who is half-white / half-black) because I felt he was the right leader for our country, at the right time, with the right ideas. Why did you vote for him? Because he is “black?” Do you really think that the election of a white mayor today would return Atlanta to pre-1973 race relations? C’mon. We know what it’s about—power, and the retaining of it. Just be honest.

* * *

Probably the most disturbing thing about this whole affair is that this memorandum was propagated by two professors at a college. These are the people who are supposed to open our kids’ minds? Expose them to new ideas? I urge Clark Atlanta University to suspend both of them post-haste. These are not the kind of mind goblins we should be exposing our young people to.

If It Sounds Like an Evil Villain from a Spy Movie Came Up With the Concept...

... It’s Probably Not True
(Or, Some Misconceptions About Health Care Reform)

To counteract the incredible display of horse manure flying about the airwaves, on tv, and being suggested to you by your friends and neighbors, I put together this list of a few misconceptions about health care reform. Note that I am talking about the general gist of the main bills currently on hold in Congress while our representatives are on vacation or being harangued at town hall meetings. Note also that I don’t necessarily agree with all terms—current terms, that is—of the health care bill(s). In fact, in my most recent post, I suggested a few quick reform measures of my own. Nevertheless, the amount of disinformation being broadcast motivates me—no, compels me—to put together this list.

1. The current health care reform bills will produce a system of socialized medicine in this country.

First—no, they wouldn’t. Socialized medicine is the direct control of the practice of medicine by the government. The government employs virtually all medical providers (doctors, nurses) and hospitals and places of care. All citizens receive health care free of charge unless they elect to pay for it privately. Regardless of what you might think about socialized medicine, that is not what Congress is proposing. The bills before Congress propose to achieve a few core objectives: (i) stop health care insurance companies from being able to cherry-pick their insureds; principally, this means that individual policies would be treated akin to group policies. This is very important, incidentally, to self-employed people and small businesses. It would also mean the elimination of the “preexisting condition” exception from insurance policies. Anyone who has been confronted with this form of denial realizes that this is the correct and humane thing to do; (ii) offer a government-subsidized plan to the working poor and lower middle class families (akin to Medicare); (iii) make—yes, make, as in require—the uninsured get insurance (and objective (ii) is very closely related to this objective). The culmination of all three of these principal goals is intended to produce the goal of universal coverage; viz., everyone can get health insurance of some kind in this country.

Second—every time I hear someone shout out “socialized medicine” with that sort of crazy glint in their eye, I wonder: Do they really know what they’re talking about? I don’t think so. I think it’s like we all accused someone of being a Communist back in the ‘80s. I think really it’s a substitute for “bad.” So, what they’re really saying is—health care reform! Bad!

Well, maybe if it’s the wrong kind of health care reform. And maybe socialized medicine would be bad, though the Brits seem to think it’s okay. In any case, that’s not what we’re getting, so this is a misconception and is FALSE.

2. A faceless government bureaucrat will make your health care decisions for you.

Okay. This one makes me smile a little bit, because, I mean… isn’t a faceless insurance company bureaucrat making your health care decisions for you right now? I know that’s the case for us, where my wife and I were prevented from having our second child for a year and a half because of insurance waiting periods. (Needless to say numerous conversations over the years with … wait for it… faceless insurance company bureaucrats trying to get something covered. If you haven’t experienced this yet, just wait—it’s coming, my friend. Unless, of course, health care is completely reformed). Wouldn’t it at least be better if the faceless bureaucrat were a government employee, theoretically working for you, and also subject to review by Congress and our elected representatives?

Also, of course— and here’s the zinger—uhm, no. A faceless bureaucrat would not be making health care decisions for anyone. The healthcare plan “czar” (is anyone besides me getting a little tired of the use of the word “czar” every time we set up a program where one guy is the head honcho? It’s like appending “-gate” at the end of any supposed scandal. Do they have a special course on hackneyed phrases in journalism school?) would be in charge of approving plans proffered by insurance companies who want to participate in the healthcare exchange. Doctors would be in charge. Or, as I prefer to think about it after spending some time in the hospital with my wife following her c-section, patients are in charge.

3. Health care reform will encourage euthanasia of the elderly.

This falls under the category of “if it sounds crazy, it probably is.” I am continually amazed at the capacity for some people to be so gullible and… ingenuous (as in, innocent… not “ingenious,” as in clever). Look, if it sounds like a concept of an arch villain in a spy movie, it’s not likely to be true, okay? A purpose of health care reform is not to kill elderly people. The fact that this assertion even has to be refuted disgusts me. But thanks to people like Sean Hannity and friends, this disinformation is countenanced and given air time. (Much like the “Obama was not born in Hawaii” claims. Complete and utter garbage.)

I was going to call this the “top five” misconceptions about health reform, but it’s late and I’m tired. There is also a certain level of tolerance I have for mentally engaging with and refuting what, seem to me, to be such blatant errors. Where is our independent media? Oh, wait, that’s right, we lost it when Fox started winning the air wars.

My tolerance level and endurance for this sort of thing is also taxed by an undercurrent of dismay and cynicism. These arguments—these outright lies, really—are not the real powers that need to be fought. These misconceptions are propagated by very powerful interests that stand to lose a great deal with health care reform. Insurance companies, certain health care providers, pharmaceutical companies, basically everyone profiting from skyrocketing health care and treatment costs (sellers, not providers for the most part—hospitals and, for the most part, doctors have not seen lasting prosperity from the massive inflation in health care costs over the last 20 years). My dismay and cynicism arise from the fact that the people fighting this battle on the ground for these powerful interests are harming themselves—they have been manipulated and do not even realize it. It’s truly disgusting. With a little money and an ingenious campaign of disinformation, powerful, fortified interests can manipulate people to fight a battle that harms their own interest.

But that’s the nature of the beast in our current socio-economic-political system. There will be no discussion on the merits. Only a Machiavellian power struggle.

We will see a similar event with the global warming bill—already tremendously watered down. When the time comes, I will fire up the ol’ blog. But for now, I shine my blazing beacon of truth on health care reform! And will continue to do so as long as I can tolerate it.

Peace be with you.

A Healthcare Proposal

Healthcare reform. It’s all the rage—except for the fascinating revolt of the middle class playing out in Iran. But I digress.

It’s easy to digress when you’re talking about healthcare, because it’s hard to understand, miserable to confront, and there are so many vested interests filling the airwaves with misinformation, you can almost feel the magnetic radiation bouncing off your skin.

But I’m going to attempt to identify some of the main problems and propose one or two possible solutions.

First, what are the problems? The conservative pundits would have you believe that we have a wonderful field of competition out there—one of the most common statistics I’ve heard George Will, Michael Steele, Lindsey Graham and others on the right cite is that there are “1300 competing providers of health care” out there—as though the sheer number proves 1) competition exists, and 2) that it’s working.

Neither proposition is true. Anyone who has ever had any sort of medical procedure beyond an annual check-up and has received a bill knows that the care they got wasn’t worth what they’ve been charged. Not that the care is bad, but--$500 for 1 hour in a hospital room? $2,000 for a simple ER visit with an xray? There is a hidden cost that is being surcharged to all persons who receive healthcare, especially hospital care, which is directly related to those who cannot afford to pay their bills—usually, the uninsured. This cost is passed on to others who can pay or have insurance. This is not the market in action. This is some kind of strange dance between insurance companies and hospitals and other healthcare providers. And we get caught in the middle. And oh, by the way, insurance companies reap a healthy profit. (At least they did operating in their own industry. Once they started speculating in exotic financial vehicles (insuring credit swaps, e.g.), they started losing money.)

So, regardless of whether we have some sort of faux competition among health insurance companies, the market itself is not currently working. Not existent, actually, because we have this weighty anchor pulling us down, inflating our costs threefold or more.

What’s more, we have moved to a strange confused view of health insurance versus health care. Insurance is a contract for money payable upon the occurrence of certain events. Perhaps one of the purest examples of insurance is auto insurance. You don’t think you will get in an accident (your fault or otherwise) but you better have insurance to cover the risk that you will, otherwise you will end up with a large sum out of pocket. In fact, states require auto insurance, because too many people were causing accidents and did not have the means to reimburse the damages of the person they injured—medical bills or automobile repairs.

Compare this to health insurance. You have a plan that has certain benefits. You pay a premium, as with auto insurance, but certain in-network procedures and certain medications are completely “free,” while others aren’t. Certain coded procedures are allowable, while others are not. These days, you’re not really buying insurance, but a health plan with insurance-like features (like a total pay-out limit). And, because it’s insurance and not a health plan, meaning you have to make a claim against the contract you’re paying for and the insurance company has the right and does carefully scrutinize the treatment (and carefully crafts the language of its policies to limit payouts), it’s a crappy health plan.

The current state of things, then, is that (1) we have a broken market for healthcare “insurance” (or healthcare plans) with (2) a hidden and uncontrollable variable linked to the uninsured, and (3) plans that are full of holes and inevitably create an antagonistic process between the claimant (the patient) and the insurance company. Meanwhile, hospitals, and to a lesser extent doctors, are caught in the middle.

How do we fix this morass? Here are some ideas, none of which are mutually exclusive:

1. Government mandate for healthcare insurance. We all hate government mandates, right? Here’s one that would instantly fix a lot of problems: Require all persons in this country to obtain catastrophic health care insurance. That’s right, I’m asking for this invasion in our lives, but for our own good. Much like the requirement for liability insurance for automobiles (which is required in almost every state in the union), the cost protection we all gain from not having to subsidize someone’s $1 million treatment far outweighs the impairment of our liberty. Catastrophic health care insurance is pretty self-explanatory: it insures against high-cost medical events. Essentially, it is very high deductible health insurance. The mandate I would be looking for is something on the order of requiring all persons to obtain a health insurance plan with a $25,000 (or less) annual deductible. It should be very cheap, because a person rarely spends more than that amount in a year. Proviso—I’m not sure where the number should be exactly; we might be a little high or a little low here. But I think an optimal number could be reached. Also, we will still have to have Medicare, because as people age, the cost of even a catastrophic health care insurance policy becomes prohibitive; this is not a unifying healthcare reform effort in the sense that all pieces line up under this one piece of legislation.

A corollary to this idea is that either the government would have to offer insurance alongside competitors to “uninsurable” people; e.g., people like my mother who have had breast cancer or some other kind of disease, probably as an extension of Medicare. Or, the government would have to impose on the insurance industry a requirement that such persons cannot have preexisting conditions held against them. The insurance industry has actually offered this carrot to prevent the current overhaul of healthcare that we’re seeing.

2. Preventive healthcare. A lot of folks are not going to like this one, but we can tamp down a lot of health care costs by providing for free to every person legally in this country (perhaps even illegally, since illegals go to the hospital, too, and drive up all of our costs) preventive care, including annual checkups, vaccines, and routine procedures. This would cause some cost for the government, but I believe that the savings would be greater. These people would also presumably contribute income rather than being sick, and generate tax revenue. Obviously, this is hard to gauge, but I think it’s a fair risk to benefit us economically, and allows us to feel good about ourselves as a society from a moral perspective, because we are taking care of our own.

3. Bar healthcare providers from discriminating against single payers. A lot of small business owners and independent contractors cannot afford a group policy that offers discounted rates. When we go to the hospital, doctor, etc., we sometimes don’t get the negotiated rate. Prevent healthcare providers from engaging in these practices. It unfairly punishes those people who need the most help and create the most jobs in this country.

These are just a few ideas. But the goal should be to get everyone covered, at least for the big stuff, and to control health care costs by engaging in preventive medicine and restoring true market prices. There are many other approaches, including a full-on national health insurance plan. I leave discussion of that for another day, mainly because I have no idea what it would look like in the United States at this point in time. But there is no doubt—none—that we cannot continue to skate along this increasingly steep slope of skyrocketing health care costs and arbitrary (and occasionally immoral) healthcare treatment.

GM Still Doesn't Get It

30.1 Billion dollars. Billion with a capital "B" because it's a huge frickin' number. And it will be wasted. Like the 9 billion before it. And more billions before that in subsidies, non-tarrif barriers to trade, loans, etc.

GM CEO Fritz Henderson says GM has made mistakes. That GM is now going to be a corporation focused on the customer. And with that statement, I know he doesn't "get it" any more than Rick Wagoner got it as he watched GM steadily lose market share while blaming everything except the root cause. He blamed Japanese policy as protectionist and undercutting US competitiveness. He blamed anti-union policies in southern factories. But what Fritz and Rick have never acknowledged is GM simply builds bad cars.

That's right. GM's cars suck. They are unreliable, shoddily built, made with cheap components, and problem prone. From the Cobalt to the Corvette. Any GM car that makes it past 150,000 miles - nothing for a Japanese-built car - is considered exceptional. And when the car breaks, GM frequently fails to stand behind its cars or its warranties. Five years ago, Hyundai built crap cars just like GM, but they stood behind their warranties, and steadily stole market share from GM. Now they build good cars, and are still stealing marketshare from GM.

Consider my own experience. Since I was a kid, the only car I ever wanted was a Corvette. I even remember the first Corvette I ever saw - a two-tone black and silver "C-3." So, when I had the money, I ordered and bought a 2001 C-5 Corvette, Navy blue with black interior. It was beautiful. When I sold it in 2006, it had less than 30,000 miles on the odometer. In that time, I had all four tire sensors replaced, both window motors replaced, the temperature regulator failed (clogged by the "100,000 mile coolant" that coagulates if a car is not driven daily), the seals around the roof tore and ceased to be waterproof (leaked in the rain), the leather on the drivers' seat wore through and 12 of 16 pushrods were found to be bent. The icing on the cake was the poor fit and finish - I could see wires through the dash...

The story behind the pushrod repair explains why GM finds itself in bankruptcy as of 9 AM this morning. Shortly after the dealer's mechanic told me the source of the noise I heard, I was called in to talk to the GM warranty claims agent. I don't remember her name, but I remember the conversation after I was told GM would not pay for the warranty repair. I asked why not. Here is the conversation:

Agent: "Well, we feel it is obvious you have repeatedly red-lined the engine."
Me: "Excuse me?"
Agent: "We have determined because you caused the problem, it is not our responsibility to cover the repair."

To understand the ridiculousness of this statement, consider this: The Corvette redlines at 7500 rpm. In 6th gear, the car would do 90 mph at 2400 rpm. The car would do 90 mph in 3rd gear at 4500-5000 rpm. To "repeatedly redline the engine" I would have had to "repeatedly" downshift from 6th gear to 3rd gear at something like 130 mph - something I never did.

Here's the rest of the conversation:

Me: "So you are accusing me of abusing my car?"
Agent: "We aren't accusing you of anything. We just feel you have exceeded the terms of your warranty." (huh?)
Me: "Amazing. You realize I am never going to buy another Chevrolet?"
Agent: "I am sorry you feel that way."
Me: "I'm sure you do." click.

What I should have said (I've had a little time to think about this since 2002...): "And you realize I am going to tell everyone I know about this and encourage them to not buy Chevrolets?"

And so I have. In 2002, I knew Chevrolet - and GM with it - was headed for the toilet. And why? Simple. They don't build good cars, and then they fail to stand behind their product.

This is the company that is going to "focus on their customers." Sure. I'll believe it when I see it. And I don't expect to see it. But good luck, Fritz. You'll need it. It's just a shame we will all have to pay for it.

Quick Thoughts on the “Tea” (Bag?) Parties

Yeah, yeah, I know. Where have all the posts gone? Perhaps it’s spring fever. Or maybe the fact that it’s not an election year. (Or that I’ve been busier with work. Which is good.) But I have posted fewer blog entries recently. I won’t say I “promise” I will put more together, but I will “try.”

So here’s something now that I’ve been meaning to discuss. All these “tea” parties—which with great misfortune began to be known as “tea bagging” parties… ehhh—on April 15. What was that all about? I think it was about a lot of things, actually. I don’t think it was what many conservative commentators were trying to frame it as, that being some kind of conservative groundswell/revolution for the Republican point of view. As has been written about extensively by others (I promise—go read it if you haven’t already), most of the supporters were not fans of Republicans, either. Some of them even got booed when they tried to sort of preempt the event or earn some political points.

I think the tea parties were a groundswell of sorts, but mainly of the Ron Paul-esque libertarian variety. I think that the economy being in the tank has hurt a lot of people, and many of these people are feeling very poorly used. So they’re mad.

What the tea parties were not about was accuracy. The guys in Boston who threw the tea into the harbor to protest the British Empire’s tax upon the product were, in fact, not represented. A Parliament and king across an ocean were making policy and extracting money from the colonies for their own imperialistic purposes (i.e., war-funding in Europe). They were quite ill-used. So, to make a point, they threw out the tea which was owned by a government-sponsored merchant outfit (the East-India Company) in protest. The people who attended the tea parties circa 2009 voted or had the opportunity to vote. Presumably, their candidate lost. I doubt they would be protesting if they’d voted for Obama, though I suppose I could be wrong. They also are not being taxed more now than they were last year. They’re being taxed less. So, the name for the protest was a bit weak in my opinion.

The hyperventilation about the government suddenly being tyrannous also seems to be quite resoundingly false and misleading. Is the government suddenly a dangerous tyrant because it, on the advice of virtually all economists—the specialists in the field of our capitalistic economic science—is attempting to stimulate the economy with public investment? Because, based on similar recommendations, it is trying to save the financial system? Because it is trying to fix our wildly warped and UNCAPITALISTIC health care system? Because it is attempting to internalize the cost of pollution emissions? These all seem to me to be good purposes for the government to pursue. Indeed, some of these tasks are things that ONLY the government can do, because it requires enormous collective action.

Let me tell you what I think. I think that our government is now LESS restrictive and “tyrannous” because we no longer have a government that thinks it is okay to take people and hold them indefinitely. To torture people. To set up warrantless wiretaps. That refuses public disclosure at all costs and destroys electronic records. That initiates costly wars upon specious evidence with questionable motives. That favors the wealthy at the expense of the poor. That cynically disputes science in order to reward special interests.

I also have a name for those protestors: sore losers. Believe me, guys, back in 2004 I was ready to move to New Zealand. How could the country have re-elected that fool and his bungling outfit? I get it. But I got over it. In part, because I knew that eventually the pendulum would swing, the information would get out there, and we’d see some backlash—like we did in 2006 and 2008.

You lost, your agenda is on the wane and losing steam. I’d try to convince you of the errors of your ways if you’d listen. But I know you won’t. So, I’ll just say, and this should be pretty familiar to you: This is America. Love it or leave it.

It's a bittersweet life

Perhaps it's just because it's late. Perhaps it's because the song has sentimental ties. But the line "you make some money, then you die" has always resonated with me. Song being: Bittersweet Symppony http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx3m4e45bTo -- It's like our capitalistic system is grinding us down, driving our virtues to a simple matter of "well, did you make some money?" It saddens me, everytime I hear it. Yet, I count it among my favorite songs. I think because it speaks the truth, and, as you, my loyal readers know, I appreciate the truth. True, that we are driven by unaccountable forces. True, that the system is NOT fair. True, that those that deserve not are sometimes -- oftentimes-- rewarded.

I believe that is enough for a sad late night posting, don't you?
Happy Easter, all!
D

90% tax on AIG, other bonuses

So today we hear that Congress--at least the House-- is about to pass a law that taxes at 90% all bonuses paid out to AIG and other institutions that have recently received money from the federal government. The intent of the bill is clear: take back some of those "outrageous" bonuses paid to executives at institutions that they helped drive into the ground. Regardless of what you think about the bonuses, the thought struck me: wouldn't this be an unconstitutional bill of attainder? The Constitution expressly prohibits Congress from passing a bill of attainder, which is a bill or law that focuses expressly on one particular person or group. (The purpose being I think pretty clear-- the government can't pick favorites but must instead pass laws that are generally applicable both on their face and in substance). Here, it's pretty clear that the one particular group inspiring the law are these AIG executives.

Just a thought. Not going to write a law review article about it. My guess is that there is a Supreme Court case that says that the Commerce Clause gives Congress enough leverage to override the proscription against bills of attainder and that the section referencing bills of attainder has been narrowly construed... but I'd like to hear a law professor's thoughts about this. Any law professor is welcome to appropriate this thought up and contact NPR!

That's enough for today-- and tomorrow! NCAA madness beckons!

Musings on the Effects of the Stock Market's Precipitous Decline

The DOW Jones Industrial Average is, as I type this, hovering around 6,750. There are other things to talk about, including the sobering news about AIG and continuing bank failures and the struggles of the financial system... but let's think about this one issue for a minute from a couple of different angles. What does it mean that broad stock averages (and I mean the S&P 500 and Wilshire 5000 more than the DOW, really, but most people who are not brokers focus on the DOW, even though it is probably the worst of the averages as an indicator of stock market performance) are down roughly 60% from their highs less than a year and a half or so ago?

First, clearly, a lot of people have lost a tremendous amount of money. But not everyone lost the same amount-- to have the prices drop as they have, a great deal of selling has to have and did occur. So, some people cashed out earlier, and though there were some straight-out losses, it was not a zero-sum game. Where did that money go? Well, it's hard to say definitively, but based on market movements and such, a lot of it seems to have gone to precious metals and to (government) bonds. It doesn't take a PhD in Economics to know that the macro effect of over half of the investment in our public companies moving to metals which, last time I checked, sit in coffers and don't go out and hire people, make things, or offer services, is extremely bad. Funding the government isn't so bad, though, especially if the only way the government can spend money is through borrowing, which is certainly the case with the federal government of the U.S. these days. But it also is not as good a vehicle for economic growth, because it means that the public at large will have to service interest payments on huge sums for up to 30 years. Interest payments don't do much, though I suppose it funds the incomes of the people collecting them and thus would presumably stimulate the economy when they spent money-- which might have been okay in 1970 when over 90% of US bonds were held by US residents or the US itself andwould presumably spend money in the US, but isn't so good now, when roughly 40% of US bonds are held by foreign governments, and that number is likely to grow much higher as the public debt increases by about $3.5 trillion over the next 3 years. So, from a macro perspective, this is a body blow to the economy it seems to me.

Let's step away from the macro-economic viewpoint (which no one really understands anyway)for a minute here, though, and focus on some micro-economic effects of the stock market's raging decline. Here's one that cooks my own goose: if you started investing in 1996, then you have seen a 0% return on your money. 0%. Let me just type that number again (before it goes negative, because it probably will): 0%. I graduated from college in 1996. If you're like me, and started working in the late 1990s, and saved--okay, I could have saved a little more, but I tried--you haven't gotten anything out of it, basically. I should have bought a fancy car, gone on a couple of nice vacations, had a few more great meals, seems to me.

Another micro-economic impact: those poor employees who were incentivized to invest their 401ks in company stock have gotten slammed, especially those working for any bank anywhere or for AIG and other countless institutions.

Let's go back to the macro here quickly, because another bad effect of all this just occurred to me: what will be the impact of over a decade of lost return on social security? These people, including myself, who have done what they were "supposed to do"--not even talking about the people who have blown all their money or got into stupid credit card debt-- they are going to be, net and average, just poorer when they retire. Thus, they will be relying on social security MORE, not less. There's been talk about saving the liquidity of social security by lengthening the number of years it takes to qualify for it or reducing payments in some way-- we could be in a for a really sad episode in about 30 years, when a lot of old people will desperately be scrimping and saving and competing in the workplace long past the time when their parents and grandparents retired. All in all, we've stepped back. Our parents were better off; our grandparents were better off.

But maybe our kids will be okay. If they don't mind us oldsters around so much later on.

Republicans Repeat 1936

All right, this will be just a short post. Mainly, I just wanted to put something up because I haven't in a little while.

I do not pretend to know all the relevant history concerning what I am about to briefly reflect on. But here I go anyway. Apparently, after Democrats had taken power in the mid-1930s in overwhelming numbers during an economic crisis (sound kind of familiar?), Republicans voted, to a man, against all of the economic policies implemented by the Democratic majority to stimulate the economy Keynesian-style. Only 3 Republicans last week voted for the stimulus package. So true that history repeats itself.

Other parallels are striking. The 1920s saw large-scale de-regulation under Republican administrations and Congressional majorities. So did the early 2000s and even the late 1990s under a centrist Clinton administration and the later Bush administration, together with Republican majorities in Congress. (As an aside, surely it made more sense in the 1920s than in the 1990s/2000s to de-regulate, as most of the woker protections and etc. were "new" (though more were introduced in the 1930s and 1940s, things we are very familiar with today like Social Security)).

I can only hope that efforts to produce a broader consensus are more successful in further initiatives by the Obama administration to resolve the financial crisis and jerk the economy back on track than we have seen so far in 2009. I also consider it a bit of a foolish political gamble by the Republicans to take the contrarian view in the current climate. People want solutions, not invective. If the last few weeks becomes the norm rather than an aberration-- if Republicans continue to unite in opposition primarily to be the opposition-- then I think they may find themselves on the wrong side of history yet again. And hoping for a future age in which to resurge.

It takes two to tango (or, thoughts on the inauguration)

I was there. Something no doubt we will all here 20 years from now, but I WAS THERE. Without a ticket, I trekked to the Mall with a friend, and we witnessed (via Jumbotron) Obama's inauguration. Living in Alexandria, I had no excuse to not go, and as the friend who accompanied me put it best - this is our "Woodstock."

And it was. The feeling was incredible. The entire "witnessing history" is a mix of hyperbole and cliche, but this was really something. And I like to think I have seen quite a few "somethings" in my life. The mass of humanity, the 28 degree weather (16 with wind chill), the random strangers with whom we talked, the guy who looked remarkably like Ben Stiller who had come from Colorado... the 6 ft tall guy in the goofy fur hat who blocked my view, but helped (as a landmark) my friend make it back from the porta-potty. It was an experience. The sense of community. It made me proud to be an American again. There are a lot of things we have done in the past 8 years that do not make me proud, but my faith in my country was redeemed on Jan 20 - NO WHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD would a man like Barack Obama be elected to the highest post in his nation. NO WHERE ELSE.

But I sensed something else as well - a desire for retribution. I jokingly cheered when Dick Cheney finally made it to the dais... and was immediately the center of all local attention. For the record, I voted for Obama, and have no affection for Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Feith, or any of that crowd. But the response - while not altogether unexpected - still alarmed me.

I was alarmed because of what it presaged for our country. The Republican party ran the country into the ground through a populist orgy of spending and tax cuts while railroading their partisan "foes." Tom DeLay's (remember him?) justification? He "won" the election. The same phrase uttered by Nancy Pelosi this week. After Obama attempted to build bipartisan support, the stimulus package was rammed through with few changes on a nearly straight-partisan vote (some Dems joined the GOP in voting no). And thus Pelosi passed a $800+ Billion package through the House. (by way of context, $800 Billion is FAR more than has been spent on both the Iraq and Afghanistan "wars" combined since 2001). Listening to the radio this morning, I heard the GOP referred to as the "Grand Obstructionist Party" and worse. While I do not believe the GOP should be dictating the terms of the bill - they did come out below the Dems (though it was Obama who really "won" the election)- their ideas should be given consideration. The constant mutual vilification serves no one, and because Tom DeLay did it does not make it right. Are the Democrats in power no better than Tom DeLay? Because we all saw where he led the Republican party.

I believe Obama is making concerted efforts to be post-partisan - as do most Republican lawmakers, interestingly. It is his fellow Democrats in Congress who are more interested in investigations of Bush & Co. and excoriating the past than in building the future. Rather than the Republicans' special interest groups running the show, now it is the Democrats' special interest groups calling shots. One group is no better than the other. The Republicans' deserve no special treatment based on their operation of the levers of government, but Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would be wise to remember no single group holds a monopoly on truth. President Obama said the very same thing. Unless the Democratic leadership recognizes this fact, they will be doomed to the same fate to which their GOP brethren currently find themselves subjected.

Obama won the election, not Pelosi or Reid. His lead should be followed - not theirs.

Looking Back at the Presidency of George W. Bush

As so many of us look forward to the inauguration of the new president (or focus on the current economic crisis we find ourselves in), I thought it would be useful to look back at the legacy of the departing president. For most of my readers, I know that it has been eight years of frustration. For some of my younger readers, the initial frustration and exasperation that I felt with Mr. Bush is probably a pretty faded memory-- interspersed among teen-age angst and turmoil manifested in dramatic form by High School Musical parts 1, 2, 3, and etc. (Actually, I probably shouldn't use that analogy, having never actually seen any of them. N.B.-- this is not criticism of the younger generation, merely recognition of the fact that this president has been in office eight long years. If you are 25 now, you were only 17 when the whole circus began).
So, here is the (roughly) chronological list-- off the cuff and woefully incomplete-- of a few events in the dismal legacy of George W. Bush:

NEGATIVE (listed first because there's more of it):

-- Bush's selection (not election) by the Supreme Court in 2000

-- Enron and energy policy; scandal over Cheney's secret energy policy meeting with energy executives, including Ken Lay, his good friend (this is often overshadowed because it occurred in the summer of 2001)

-- Iraq War

-- "Mission Accomplished"

-- No WMDs in Iraq

-- Paul Bremer and the frat boys in charge in Iraq

-- Abu Ghraib prison scandal and general chaos in Iraq

-- Torture at Guantanamo and various other places (Eastern Europe in particular)

-- Katrina and Rita ("Brownie's doing a great job!")

-- Warrantless wire-tapping

-- Denial of global warming (in face of scientific community; and editing by federal science agencies' reports for political reasons)

-- Cheney's assertion that vice-president is not part of the executive branch (wow!)

-- Outing of Valerie Plame and political fall-out

-- Afghanistan-- mismanagement after initial success

-- Economy-- he's not solely responsible here. So is Clinton, GHW Bush, Reagan, Greenspan, Congress for the last 20 years, etc. But he didn't help by feeding the deficit, thus putting us to our current terrible Hobbesian choice of massively increasing our debt or moving to 12% or worse unemployment

POSITIVE:

-- Afghanistan-- initial success (Northern Alliance and etc.)

-- AIDS program in Africa (most support to stop epidemic ever from US)

I'm leaving out a bunch of "policy" sorts of things--e.g., tax policy, gay rights, abortion, and etc. I am only trying to include specific issues or policies that were prominently reported. (Arguably, I shouldn't give him the AIDS thing, because I could just as well add that his foreign health policy also precluded financial support for any organization that offered family planning advice, including birth control options (condoms and etc.) or abortion rights because of the right-to-lifers in his administration who believe only in abstinence-- an absurd position that will be reversed in... let's see... 2 days.) I've got to draw the line somewhere! This is a blog, not an encyclopedia.

My personal feeling about Mr. Bush-- and it is problematic to take too much license, here, because I do not know the man personally-- is that he actually is a nice man but not a leader. He allowed himself to be overridden and influenced by other men with greater will and determination, men whom he appointed to high positions of influence. On the foreign policy side, this led to disastrous results. Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and (to a lesser extent) Bolton led us with neo-conservative idealism into war in the Middle East in Iraq and, more damning, convinced by their idealism, laid no foundation for the restoration of Iraq (its government, military, and economy) and proceeded without any understanding of the culture, history, or ethnic makeup of that country or the region. On the economic policy side, there was no vision-- only following the party line, trying to eliminate taxes on the wealthy (capital gains to 0%, elimination of the estate tax, elimination of social security), eradicate public schools, and erode labor rights; basically, an attempt to turn back the clock to late 19th century cut-throat capitalism-- the conservative ideal. Because the policy was so simple, other appointments were considered unimportant-- like Michael Brown's appointment as head of FEMA. Incompetence and cronyism reigned.

**

Good riddance. Open the window and let the fresh breeze in.

Defense Contractors and General Motors

I work in DC and live in Alexandria. Consequently, when I take the Metro into work, I pass by the Crystal City, Pentagon City and the Pentagon Metro stations. For those not familiar, at each of these stops are a plethora of signs from defense contractors - each saying how they save soldiers lives in the field, or how the particular item they are hawking is essential to the fight against terrorism, Iraqi insurgents, the next enemy, etc.

As I ride past them, I never fail to get angry. Really angry. Because I see them in the same light I have come to see General Motors - a company I fully expect to fail or be bought within the next 10 years, bailout or not. Because both groups are building products the customers don't really want. GM is moving its 8 mpg only because GMAC has received bailout money and can offer these gas hogs at 0 percent interest. The defense sector is the same. The argument is the companies are too crucial to national security to fail... or their products are the latest segment of the revolution in military affairs... or vital to the "next war."

GM will fail because it builds substandard products with poor maintenance records at too high a cost. Our defense industry is in trouble for exactly the same reasons. Exactly when the US should be leading the world in the supply of defense equipment (to reputable allies...), we are on the cusp of losing the entire market. The reason is we have priced ourselves out of the market. When we accept that a single warship (or single airplane like the B2) can or should cost over $1 Billion, we have lost the battle for pocketbooks. If that is the cost of their products, we are all doomed.

And yet, there is also the side that pisses me off. Because the words I see used I have heard before, when I was in Iraq. There, more than anywhere else, I gained my disparagement of defense contractors. As a measure of disclaimer, there are many good contractors - good people trying to do their best for their country. Then there is KBR (Kellog, Brown and Root - formerly "owned" by Halliburton, the company with which VPres Cheney was associated) and L3 Communications. KBR has allowed soldiers to die because they have held fast to the letter - not the spirit - of their contract, which does not require them to be certain Iraqi-built structures are electically safe. They may argue it is a matter of money - they can't afford to fix everything. And yet, while being paid to hire Americans, they hire Ugandans, Romanians, Hungarians, Ukrainians, Philippinos, Malays, Indonesians, etc. I do not say there is anything necessarily wrong with foreign nationals are hired - my concern is they are being exploited. And then there is L3... they are requested to supply trained, experienced analysts, and they provide untrained, inexperienced junior personnel whose only qualification is their security clearance. Many have never written a report before, and most lack the ability to write coherently.

Then I see advertisements about how bad guys aren't waiting for some integrated network to be built, or how some project is crucial to US security. And yet, I have been at the tip of the spear - indeed, I have spent most of my career there - and what these companies are offering, is usually not what the actual "warfighter" really wants. One more piece of software, one more piece of unecessary (expensive) gear... I have come to believe many of these companies are only in the game for the profit. I see no difference between them and GM - the Chevy Corvette I once had was a beautiful machine, but cheaply built and succombed by problems from the day I took possession of my custom-built vehicle.

We have come to expect our defense equipment to be expensive, but the day is soon coming where neither us - nor our many allies - will be able to afford US manufactured equipment. Not even GM would refuse to fix the tire of a car being driven off a lot. Yet frequently, that is the case with US built equipment. For example, with the LPD program, the ships were built, but any required repairs identified during acceptance trials had to be paid for by the Navy.''

Unless we are careful, our defense industries will go the way of GM. But if an equivalent product can be bought for a fraction of the price, maybe that isn't such a bad thing.

Ruby Slippers

I took my family to the newly-refurbished National Museum of American History on the National Mall today. The museum has recently reopened following a 3-year renovation. The museum houses both some of the finest artifacts of American History and famous pop-culture notables as well. Exhibits include the original Star-Spangled Banner which flew over Fort McHenry in Baltimore and so inspired Francis Scott Key , the famous lunch counter from Greensboro, N.C., documents and artifacts from many immigrants - "legal" and otherwise - to the United States, and a plethora items such as doll houses, T.V. sets, and - most famously - the "ruby slippers" Dorothy wore in the "Wizard of Oz."

The only remaining hand-written copy of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is also at the museum for a limited engagement. The document - three pages of neat, cursive script on hand-lined parchment - is on loan from the White House until Inauguration Day. This document was the reason I dragged my family into the city on a windy, cold January day and it is every bit as inspiring as I had hoped it would be.

As I read the words written in Lincoln's own, neat script, tears literally welled up in my eyes - and I say this as a Virginian reared in the mythology of the old Confederacy. Lincoln was a great man, whose simple eloquence has been unmatched in presidential oratory either before or since. It is hard to describe the feeling of reading the words "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth." A combination of excitement and sorrow... My heart stirred reading those words today because I think we are at a similar crossroads now, and no less important a moment in the history of our great nation.

However, after I passed through the exhibition hall, my blood began to boil. There were many lines at the museum today. Lines to see the Star Spangled Banner, newly restored like its home museum. Lines to see the gowns of various First Ladies. Lines even to see Julia Childs' kitchen, lovingly rebuilt in its own exhibition space. But no line was as long as the one to see Dorothy's "ruby slippers" - a cheap pair of faux-leather pumps covered with red sequins.

As for the Gettysburg Address... there was no line.

I looked around the museum with newly opened eyes, and wondered what that portended for the United States. We Americans who abound in "reality television" and cheap journalistic voyeurism - where are we headed collectively as a nation, I wondered? That we care more for gowns worn by the wealthy or cheap props worn by actors and actresses... what does that mean for our future?

Many gave all in Gettysburg on those hot summer days in 1863. And many more have given all since that day - on the fields of France, in the sands of the Pacific, in the jungles of Vietnam, and even among the palm groves of Iraq. But many more do not understand the gift they have been given by those who have given all... a fact never on display as much as on January 3rd, 2009, at the National Museum of American History...