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!
Posts
