Occupy... This!

A lot has been made of the similarities between the Occupy Wall Street (and Occupy… etc.) movement and last year’s Tea Party movement. The most obvious similarity being that both movements arose without a lot of organization or content but contained heapfuls of anger and disgust. The Tea Party’s focus was Big Government; the Occupy WS’s focus is financial institutions and big banks (and in a broader sense, their influence on government). Later on, establishment Republicans jumped on the band wagon and essentially co-opted the movement (e.g., “Mr. Tea Party” Sen. Jim DeMint). But what about their differences? There are three key differences between the two movements that seem apparent to me:

1. Occupy’s Signs Don’t Include Spelling Errors

Remember all those emails from last year with pictures that people had taken of the signs being used in at the Tea Party rallies? It was an illustration of borderline illiteracy. (As a refresher, check this out.) In contrast, the signs being displayed at the Occupy rallies do not contain misspellings or obvious contradictions like the infamous “Get your damn government hands off my Medicare!”

All right, so what’s your point Mr. Smartypants? That one group’s smart and the other’s not?

No. The distinction is that the persons rallying for Occupy are more educated than the persons who rallied for the Tea Party. This becomes apparent when you hear interviews of the participants, many of whom are graduate students, out of work teachers, etc. It’s interesting to see the difference between the groups. Now, obviously, this is not a scientifically proven difference—we’d have to do surveys and such, and the Tea Party rallies were last year, not this one. But it does seem to me, based on what I’ve seen reported and interviews and such, that this is a clear difference. And they are justifiably surprised that they are unemployed and, in many cases, have been for a long time. I say “justifiably,” because historically it has always been the case in this country that if you get a good education, you won’t have trouble finding a job. That appears to be true no longer.

2. Young

Another key difference appears to be that the Occupy protesters are younger generally than the Tea Partyers. This is, again, not scientifically provable, but viewing footage of the rallies and hearing interviews, it does seem to be the case that a lot of these folks are in the twenties (although you do hear the occasional report of a retiree joining the rallies like the one I heard a few days ago on NPR). Based on my own interactions with graduating college students, law students, and other graduate students, this does not surprise me. This is a group that, again, grew up with the concept that you’re practically guaranteed a job upon graduation from college or with an advanced degree. That is definitely not true today, and it’s baffling and frustrating for these folks.

And they’re not worthless hippies! Good grief, the smoke being blown up the collective ass of America from the right about these people is just ridiculous. Ultimately, I don’t think that sort of propaganda, which runs along the lines of the old “go get a job, hippie!”, will work, because there are no jobs to be had.

3. Angry at the Right People

And here’s where I get a little political. I agree with Paul Krugman that the final main difference between the Tea Party movement and this one is that the participants in the Occupy movement are angry at the right people. Last year’s Tea Party movement had the odd combination of rallies against the social construct—the government—that was the only thing keeping the economy from completely coming off its wheels. It also was, essentially, a rally against itself, since the “government” is run by the people.

But who caused this economic collapse? The causes are many, but the root cause appears to have been the speculative buildup of the sale and purchase of unregulated derivatives (which are, essentially, bets) that created massive liabilities, liabilities large enough to take down most of the big financial institutions in this country. The primary culprit was the credit default swap related to securitized mortgage bonds. If you really want to read a good account of how this developed, open up The Big Short by Michael Lewis. (Warning, however—after you read that book, you will be filled with great anger at Wall Street. But you should be anyway, so go ahead.) In my opinion, the blame primarily rests with a few managers in various large banks and financial institutions who made stupid decisions. Or, to put it more broadly, the problem was the big banks and financial institutions themselves being able to engage in unregulated, stupid investments.

And, now, following the massive bailout of Wall Street, Big Banks, and the wealthy individuals who massively benefited therefrom, here come the Republicans railing about deregulating the financial industry—turning back even the weak financial regulation bill that was passed in 2010—and complaining about “too many regulations” and “class warfare” (re: class warfare, this seems to mean to Republicans anyone who is against cutting taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals or raise taxes in any way on those groups). I suspect that many in the Occupy rallies have the same reaction when reading and hearing those sorts of things: WTF???

So, the guys who ruined our national economy and made millions while doing it should be told to strap it back on and get back out there? Be given tax cuts and allowed to run their own show again? Are you kidding?

Rachael Maddow and the rapid descent of cable news

This will be an admitted rant. Having lived through 9/11, and dealt personally with the aftermath of our government's response, I have not felt an overwhelming urge to watch the litany of news coverage, as though nothing had happened in the last 10 years.

And then I had to see Rachael Maddow. While I hate Fox for what that network has done to journalistic integrity, Rachael Maddow and MSNBC have taken that low to greater depths of irresponsibility.

For those who did not see it, Rachael Maddow presented a program that to me is no different than Jane Fonda sitting in a North Vietnamese tank discussing the American "war crimes" in Vietnam, referring to our Prisoners of War.

I am in the military. I will be the first to admit we made mistakes early in the "post-9/11" period. Lots of them. But one thing about the military - unlike most organizations, we have the ability to not only learn from mistakes, but rapidly implement corrections. If we don't, people die. There were people who thought after 9/11 that "enhanced interrogation techniques" - essentially light forms of torture - would deliver results. In fact, they did not. We had to re-learn old experience - torture is not effective as an interrogation technique because the person being tortured will say anything to make it stop.

So, here I am in 2011 confronted by the same garbage accusations I have heard - and were dealt with - by 2004-2005. Discussion of Abu Ghraib as if it was last year, and not in 2003. And the whole time, Rachael Maddow making empathetic looks that say - "Oh, I understand that the government made you do horrible things." But there is no retort - no one saying that we have learned from our mistakes. We would not have turned the Sunnis in Western Iraq if we had not learned... we would not have decimated al Qaeda in Iraq if we had not learned... we would not be leaving Iraq now if we had not learned...

The name of the program is "Day of Destruction, Decade of War." The implication is we have responded to too great a degree. Which is all I hate about the new cable news. And here we have the crux of the problem - oversimplification of the issues. As Americans with a bicameral system, we like black and white. But our nation exists in a world of gray.

In the future, we will likely look back on this time as the second age of yellow journalism. My only hope is we survive this second age with no worse affects than the first in the early years of the 20th century.

Me & Mr. Boortz

I was perusing the pages of the Atlanta-Journal Constitution last weekend—following my usual routine of obsessive reading about the Braves (most of the news concerning which I had already read via various internet sources, but which didn’t stop from me re-reading it all again, of course) in the Sports section, followed by a skim/spot read through the front page, metro, and business sections—when I made the mistake of glancing at the editorial section.

When I can bring myself to do it, my usual method of reviewing the editorial section of the AJC involves taking a few seconds to see what everybody is talking about, scanning the first couple of sentences of each column to see if I already know what the “liberal” or “conservative” is going to say, and then, the rare instances I don’t, moving to Stage Two. Stage Two involves probing a bit further with a brief skim over the internal paragraphs of the column and then reading the thing itself if it seems interesting.

I frame this in terms of reluctance, incidentally, because the stupidity and spin that litters editorial pages, the AJC included, usually pisses me off or disgusts me, which is not how I like begin a day.

Anyway, I carried out that strategy once more last Saturday and found nothing worthy of Stage Two, until I ran across Neal Boortz’s column. It was an opinion piece that was kind of a general diatribe—no single issue was addressed. Accordingly, it whizzed by Stages One and Two as a result of its skipping around of topics—there was no real theme, just a kind of yammering. It went like this:

* Stage One: Hmmm, what is this about? Can’t tell from the initial sensationalist intro.

* Stage Two: What does that have to do with the other stuff? What? Are you SERIOUS?

Then commenced the reading, the irritation, and actually enough outrage to pound out the following email to the editors of the editorial section at the AJC:

***

Dear AJC Editors:

I know you gave Neal Boortz a column, but just because you give him a weekly column, does that mean that you completely cede editorial control? I’ve read and listened to Mr. Boortz off and on for years, and though I usually disagree with him, he makes the occasional good point. Today’s article, however, was like reading propaganda from crazy town. I would list the multiple factual inaccuracies, but I know you wouldn’t publish such a lengthy response. Instead, it’s YOUR JOB as the editors to filter out extreme rhetoric (and, frankly, poorly written material) from the pages of your newspaper. If Mr. Boortz chooses to “mail one in” you should excise it and simply note that Mr. Boortz’s column is not appearing today. And tell him to work harder.

Dan Wright

***

For those who do not know, Neal Boortz is a locally / regionally famous conservative talk-show radio host. He’s been on the Atlanta scene for years. He projects as a kind of rugged libertarian-minded sort, but he’s really more a conservative with libertarian leanings.

(The original column by Neal Boortz appears here.)

That was, I thought, the end of it. Then, however, I received the following email last Wednesday evening while I was at a Braves game:

***

Mr. Wright, I spoke with Mr. Boortz's editor and he would like for you to point out what you believe is inaccurate in the column if it is not too much of an inconvenience for you. As a columnist, Mr. Boortz gets wide latitude, but there should not be clear factual inaccuracies in his column.

Kind regards,

Shawn McIntosh

AJC Public editor

***

Okay, I admit it, I was proud. I had gotten their attention. The single voice was standing up to the wide river of ideological blather and had actually been acknowledged for once. However, this also meant that I had to write a response.

Guys, I’m pretty busy these days. I’ve got two kiddos and (with my wife) am running my own business, among other things. While I try to crank out a blog post every now and again, my free time went from marginal to near-non-existent the last couple of years, and when I’ve got it, I’m usually not aiming to write about politics, frankly; rather, I’m looking for activities mostly involving beer.

Additionally, responding to conservative blather is harder than one might think. It’s not a simple matter of demonstrating, “hey, you said 2 + 2 = 5; it’s really 4.” Even though there are clear and obvious problems with the premises of most facially conservative or “libertarian” thought, it takes a little bit of time to break it down and show it for what it is.

I went ahead and did it, though. (I know, those of you who know me well are thinking, “enough with the lead-ins, Dan, we knew you were going to respond, what did you say?”-- that is, those of you who are still reading this thing.) It’s an okay response in my estimation. It’s one of those deals where you could just go on and on, but… In any case, my response follows:

***

Shawn:

Thank you for responding.

These are the portions of Mr. Boortz’s column that I found to be factually inaccurate and not deserving of publication in a wide-circulation newspaper:

* Mr. Boortz’s reference to Obama as “a man with so little understanding of what it means to be an American”: It’s fine to attack the man’s politics, but the repetitive effort to frame Obama as some kind of foreigner (and what seems to be a veiled reference to the never-ending and shifting claims that he really wasn’t born in the U.S. or is a Muslim) crosses a line between serious political opining and propaganda.

* “World history is full of dynasties, monarchies, dictatorships and theocracies; but representative democracies — republics, if you will — are few and far between, and history shows they usually die a violent death. The life expectancies of governments such as ours is just a bit over 200 years, and we’re there.” I have heard this 200-year-average-lifespan claim a number of times—in fact, I heard it over lunch today and had to inwardly cringe. Hard right conservatives seem to break it out when they want to scare people. It’s usually a lead-in to making radical arguments for backward change.

So, what’s the source here? Most often, people like to make the romantic comparison of the “decay” of the United States with the “fall and decline” (to borrow the title of a famous historian’s masterwork about the Roman Empire) of the Roman Empire. There are quite a few problems with this comparison, however. First, the government was hardly a representative democracy or republic in a modern sense. There were counsels of prominent citizens and a senate, but it was more rule by oligarchy or aristocracy for most of the life of the Roman “republic.” Another problem—it lasted a whole lot longer than 200 years. Try 550 or so. Yet another problem: most historians consider the apex of Roman power and prestige to have occurred during the Roman Empire, 200 or so years after the republic faltered (in approx. 120 A.D.).

What other sources are there to make this bold statement? Well, we have another favorite topic of the right, the rise of the Nazi regime. However, the Nazis took power only 15 or so years after the formation of the Weimar Republic. That’s nowhere near 200 years! (Incidentally, I always find it somewhat odd that the right uses the example of the Nazi party when trying to criticize liberals. The Nazis were, after all, a fascist group… an extreme hard right group, that is.) The true lesson of the fall of German democracy in the 1930s is that democracies can fail if they are systematically attacked and undermined from within. That is a lesson that we should take a hard look at when we view our own current collection of oddballs in Congress. We should be very sensitive, it seems to me, to those who want to “tear it all down” (I’m looking at you, Tea Partiers), because it can be torn down; these institutions are not, as many folks seem to assume, indestructible.

Another problem with Mr. Boortz’s statement is that representative democracies are, in fact, not “few and far between” in modern history. Virtually every nation in Europe is currently a representative democracy of some kind or another. That was certainly not the case only a couple of hundred years ago at the foundation of our country. The Arab Spring shows a movement towards democracy. Many nations in Asia are democracies or trending that way. Facts belie this statement. If there is a trend, it’s towards democratic forms of government, not away.

I really weary of these oft-repeated phrases, so oft-repeated that no one really thinks to question them anymore. But we should; accepting these kinds of statements sets the stage for irrational arguments and confrontations. Sure, if our democracy is about to “expire” and be blown away by the winds of history, perhaps we should go ahead and give up—dismantle it, “kill the beast.” Social Security? Well, it’s just a matter of time anyway. Medicare? Forget it, a luxury our broken and dying civilization can no longer afford.

But it’s just not true.

* “The slide to the ultimate end seems to be when the people have figured out that they can use the ballot box to claim someone else’s property; and we’re there as well.” Where is the authority for this statement? What is he talking about? I mean, this really baffles me. Is he talking about Communist Russia or China? Maybe I missed it, but I don’t recall the citizens of those countries voting to install that kind of governmental system. They had it imposed on them.

Now, there are many socialist democracies in Northern Europe that have voted for things like universal medical care and pensions and the higher taxes to support them, but they seem to be doing just fine. England, also, has universal health care, and I don’t see that country falling to its “ultimate end.”

Like I said in my original email, this is talk from crazy town. Maybe in Crazyland, they all voted to lower the retirement age to 25, and the country vaporized into anarchy.

It’s fantasy.

* “There is, after all, no constitutional right to vote in a presidential election.” There actually is a constitutional right to vote in a presidential election, but the voting is technically not for president, but for electors who will vote for the nominee of their party. I include this statement in the category of inaccurate facts, because (i) in practice, you go to the ballot box and vote for president, and your vote counts—simple as that. To suggest otherwise is being a bit intellectually dishonest; and (ii) he links this statement with “culling the voter registration lists.” The oddity of voting for electors in a presidential election as opposed to directly for the people running for that office does not support jettisoning names off of the voter registration lists because of a perceived lack of a constitutional right to vote. There’s no logical connection there. There also would be pretty obvious due process rights involved here; that would be the 14th Amendment, which is, in fact, part of the Constitution.

My other objection to the column was that it was a shallow treatment undeserving of inclusion in the AJC. For example, Mr. Boortz’s shallow concept of “rights” and how they are addressed under the Constitution. Well, he did say that the concept of rights was “hard.” I do agree with that.

This sort of rhetoric is distinctly unhelpful… it sets out certain facts in an authoritative and general way (no specifics allowed) and then leaps to illogical but connected conclusions. E.g., the example cited above about not having a right to vote in a presidential election. Let’s cull the voter registration lists, because there’s no constitutional right to vote! I’m pretty sure Mr. Boortz is aware that he is doing this, but sometimes I wonder. Either way, it’s unfit to be in your newspaper.

Sincerely,

Dan Wright

P.S. There are no doubt other factual inaccuracies in Mr. Boortz’s column. Those were just the ones that popped out to me upon reading it. Having read some accounts of the Founding Fathers, I question his blanket statements about what they thought or did, but I don’t really have the time or, frankly, inclination to look them all up. As I always tell my friends and relatives, don’t accept things just because you hear them; analyze and research them.

***

Your turn, Mr. Boortz.



A Letter to President Obama

Dear Mr. Obama:

I am not entirely please with how your presdidency has gone to date.  I, and many Americans, bought the promise of "change we can believe in."  We thought that you would be able to do things to improve our lives that were real and achieveable.  Sadly, what we've witnessed is a strictly pragmatic approach to solutions combined with a sort of naivete about how to accomplish things.  That is almost a pure contradiction but I think it best describes what has happened.

You pulled out all the stops to get some kind of health care reform done.  That, I can appreciate in some ways.  It's not the reform that I would have chosen, but it IS an improvement.  You didn't communicate what it does very well; you still have an opportunity to do so, but I guess since it's done you've moved on to other things.

I am severely disappointed with your stance on gay rights.  Yes, it might not be completely popular among the African American community (a core constituency) to support gay rights, but there is a plurality in favor of them.  And, screw the polls-- there is something called justice and another thing called morality.  I'm quite certain that you feel the same way but wonder if "America is ready"; well, you know what?  America wasn't ready for de-segretated schools, but it was the right thing to do.  Support removing restrictions on gay marriage; hell, leave it to the states but support the removal of federal restrictions.  And STOP directing the DOJ to defend "don't ask, don't tell."  It's a solution that even in the early '90s was recognized as backwards and controversial.  That's right, I said "directing."  Yes, the DOJ makes its own decisions, but it's not like you can't say "stop."  The DOJ is part and parcel of the executive branch of the federal government.  You have the power.  Young people and the future think it's wrong; it IS wrong.  End it.

I suppose global warming is on the rocks at this point.  Screw it, right?  Won't happen for years and years, so we can punt it.  That's the problem with issues like these, though-- we don't have the perspective or ability to solve long-term externalities.  We all hoped and thought that you would, but you just didn't.  Two years with strong majorities in Congress, and you just couldn't pull it together.  Yes, your opposition--Big Oil--is tough, but in January 2009, they were weak and you were strong. 

And now.  Taxes.  Even after the new Congress takes office, Democrats still will have a majority in the Senate and, of course, you as President, but somehow, someway, the Republicans have the bully pulpit.  What the hell?  Listen, this is what you do, okay?  You tell the Republicans that you'll extend the middle-class tax cuts--hell, you tell 'em you'll even cut the mid rates a bit so that you're not only keeping things the same but giving middle class people a little bit more-- but you tell the Republicans to just shove it on the rich people tax cut.  And if the tax cuts expire, come on!  SERIOUSLY!  Where did you learn to negotiate???  You're driving me crazy here, Obama!  You can't out-argue, out-politic, out-communicate on THIS issue?  Then what the hell are you doing in office?

You haven't been treated quite fairly, I'll admit and acknowledge.  From Day 1, the media has been out to get you:  Fox, because they're conservative; CNN and the rest, because, well, they were looking for a chance to burst the bubble.  There's also the shadow of racism, which I think is the fount of some of the Tea Party criticism (just like the visceral hate of Hillary Clinton because she is a powerful woman, among conservatives, you being black stirs up some hate and anger).  And, of course, there's the shitty economy, which punishes anyone in charge.  But you have brought much of this on yourself with your ham-handed and naive negotiating tactics and poor communication.  I expected more, and I hope for more.  I'll likely vote for you again in a couple of years, but it'll probably be more because I don't want a President Palin than any other reason.  Make me vote for a different reason.  Please.

Election 2010 Survey: The Teabag... er... Republicans Strike Back

          Here we are, two days in advance of the November 2, 2010 elections, and I realize I have not posted a whit about it. That’s understandable, perhaps, as the Democrats appear to be on the verge of getting their butts handed to them; the Democratic Party is generally my “team,” though I don’t belong to it.  They’re my team by default, really—until there is a party that is socially liberal and economically moderate, I’ll live with a little bit more government spending and regulation over legislating morality and proposing crazy shit like repealing the 14th amendment or doing away with Social Security.  But enough about me!  Here are the more interesting tidbits of this year’s election, at least to me (and apologies in advance for the Georgia focus of some of these to my non-Georgia resident friends):

          1.     What’s the Deal? Proving that some people will truly vote for anyone, it appears that the serially corrupt, bankrupt multi-celled organism mascarading as the Republican candidate for governor here in Georgia, Nathan Deal, will prevail over former Governor Roy Barnes.  Mr. Deal’s ethical challenges have been detailed at length.  Here they are in a nutshell for those that missed the story(ies) or have been listening to talk radio: (1) He intervened in a state program to halt changes that would have cost his auto salvaging company $300,000 or so a year; (2) He used state campaign funds to pay for defense of ethics claims brought against him in Congress, a big no-no (which he subsequently dodged by resigning); (3) He failed to file proper disclosures relating to his financial status while in Congress; and (4) He failed to file proper disclosures relating to his financial status during his campaign for governor.  Incidentally, when the truth DID finally come out about his financial status, we saw why he didn’t want to reveal anything: the guy is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy.  Now, do I think that someone having financial problems necessarily means that he’s a bad person?  Absolutely not!  But would I want a person on the verge of bankruptcy who has a proven record of intervening in state programs for his own personal gain to be elected to the highest office in the state???  All right, that’s a massive rhetorical question, but I want to write this down: NO!  NO!  NO!  C’mon, people!!!!

          2.     The Case for Funding Public Radio. This is not really an election issue, but it’s been in the news quite a bit.  There’s been a lot made of the whole Juan Williams firing, and conservatives who have attacked public radio for years have used it to justify terminating public funding for National Public Radio (NPR).  I don’t have a lot to say about Mr. Williams’ firing other than this: he’d been reprimanded a couple of times before for straying from his role as an analyst, so NPR’s jettisoning of him was perhaps not as hasty as it’s been characterized.  (I also personally never got a lot out of his analysis; he wasn’t bad, just not really insightful to me, so I’m not sorry to see him go).  There is a strong case to be made for public funding of a national news source, however.  Let’s think about it by comparison to the funding sources for “regular” news broadcasters.  Most of the revenue from companies like ABC, CBS, Fox, etc. come from advertisers, which are large corporations.  Funding for NPR comes from the public; us, the individual citizens of this country.  I think it is reasonably fair to suggest that influence on content cannot be completely separated from the identity of the financial supporters of the distributors of the news.  Which would you trust?  Also, I think there is a strong public interest in ensuring that the citizens of this country are informed about news in an objective manner.  Without full, unbiased information, it is difficult for a democracy to work, because the people would be making (voting) decisions on imperfect or incomplete information.  So, to those who claim that the government should not be funding things like information and news reporting, I challenge that assertion.  I think it’s just about as important as public campaign financing (whoa boy, and there’s another big problem).

          3.     The Tea Party Moves to Congress. One thing is clear according to the polls I have seen (Nate Silver’s work at fivethirtyeight.com being the best out there); we’re going to be getting some pretty entertaining characters in D.C. next year.  (I would say nut jobs, but hey, trying to keep the tone down a little. Whoops, guess I accidentally let one slip).  With Sharon Angle and Rand Paul, we’re going to be getting some doozies!  Too bad it appears Christine “I’m not a Witch” O’Donnell appears to be on a losing track.  That would have made a great trio.  Still, we’ll have at least six years of Angle, Rand, and possibly Joe Miller (from AK) to keep us entertained and hopefully their states reminded of their voting folly of 2010.

          4.     Vote “No” On Amendment 1. Yes, another Georgia-centric issue here.   (I do live here, you know.)  Amendment 1 would allow non-competition agreements to be enforced with greater vigor here in Georgia.  While normally I would just be mildly opposed to that concept, I’m frankly disgusted with how the drafters of Amendment 1 have decided to put it to the voters.  For those of you who haven’t seen it, here’s the text: “Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to make Georgia more economically competitive by authorizing legislation to uphold reasonable competitive agreements?”  Does that sound like something that someone who has no idea what it’s about could reasonably punch “No” on the ballot?  (No! I think Georgia should be less competitive, by God!)  I believe that fundamental changes to the Constitution of Georgia should be stated upfront and in black and white.  It should have read something like “Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to allow employers to prevent departing employees from competing with their business by either starting a new business or getting a job with a competitor?”  What do you think most people would say to that?    Right, I thought so.  So did the proponents of Amendment 1.  Hence, the intellectually dishonest language.

          Well, are you ready?  Are you ready for Sad Tuesday?  I suppose I am.  Finally, GO VOTE, PEOPLE. (Unless you intend to vote for Deal, even after reading this blog.  You, sir or madam, stay home and watch Dancing With the Stars reruns or something—or whatever strikes your fancy).

Don't Trample the Constitution

In all this talk about the Mosque or Islamic center or whatever-the-hell-it-actually-is at or near “Ground Zero,” I have heard a lot cry and hue about how “disrespectful” it is for private citizens to want to build this Muslim-whatever on private property.


And before every current, former, and future New Yorker starts yelling at me, yes, yes, yes, I get the point that said private property happens to be really close to where a number of Muslim men flew planes into some heavily occupied buildings murdering thousands of people (including, I would assume, some other Muslims). I understand why people are offended. I get that it may be painful for some survivors of 9/11 to walk by a reminder of the religion of the perpetrators. I am not saying I think it is a good idea (even if the motives of the builders are truly to promote a dialog among people of many faiths and to do some image buffing for Islam).

But, I think that there is a fairly widespread fundamental misunderstanding of how our constitutional freedoms work. You know what I’m talking about, right? Those things like “freedom of religion” and “freedom of speech” and “freedom of association?” There are a number of people calling for, even demanding, a change in the plans to build the Muslim-whatever. And many of the people calling for a change in plans seem to think that just because many (maybe most, who knows?) people oppose the construction of this Muslim-whatever, that it must not happen, that somehow the planners of this Muslim-whatever must kowtow to the demands of the many.

Well, the idea behind our constitutional freedoms is to protect the few from the many. The goal is to ensure that the rights of people who want to say things that are not politically expedient or to hang out with people who may have generally offensive views or to constantly remind other people of a really, really, really bad day are not trampled upon. Sure, the politically correct or the majority (or both if they are one and the same) can then exercise their freedoms to criticize the actions of the few, but our constitutional freedoms are not intended to give the many a billy club that they can use to bludgeon the few into conformity.

Just because most don’t like it, doesn’t mean the few can’t do it. And, let’s face it: unless there is some zoning or other law that prohibits it, the planners of the Muslim-whatever are free to build it wherever they want, even if their express purpose is plant a huge freaking flag of Islamic victory over the infidel U.S. smack in the middle of one of the most inappropriate sites possible. What would be far more offensive would be for the majority to use the long arm of the law to prohibit the few from doing something completely legal simply because it is offensive.

So, I wish folks would do me a favor and stop implying that our constitutional freedoms somehow mean that the planners of the Muslim-whatever are obligated to stop doing whatever they’re doing. Instead, everyone interested should feel free to express their opinions, no matter how mainstream or non-PC, and everyone should continue to debate the issue. Just don’t expect plans to change simply because you express your opinion.

A Few Thoughts About Illegal Immigration

With the Department of Justice’s filing of a lawsuit this week seeking to prevent the enforcement of the new Arizona law attempting to target illegal immigration, I thought it would be relevant and timely to bequeath you all with a few thoughts about it.

This is, at first blush, a simple issue. If a person is here without having gone through the appropriate legal channels, then they have violated our national immigration laws. The penalty typically is and should be deportation, perhaps coupled with a suspension of that person’s ability to come back to our country. Very simple. Just think about the case where you yourself traveled to another country without the appropriate visa. You would expect to get in trouble, wouldn’t you? Easy enough.

However, there are other factors driving the debate about illegal immigration, some more troubling than others. The most important of these from a policy standpoint is economic. Most of the construction, lawn maintenance, and restaurant-cooking that goes on in this country is performed or dominated by illegal immigrants. These low-paying but physically demanding jobs are precisely the kinds of jobs that illegal immigrants can obtain, because very few people want them. Turning out all of these workers would mean a labor shortage, higher wages, and higher prices. Is the American consumer prepared to pay significantly more for homes and food? Maybe—but you don’t hear any discussion about this economic impact, at least not among the policy-setters (the politicians).

The more troubling factor at play is the passion behind this issue. Are people passionate because they feel that illegal immigrants are getting a free ride in this country? I think some are; and there is no doubt that, because we are a society that has (in some ways, at least) treated people with a minimum threshold of care since the Great Depression and Great Society projects created a minimal safety-net of social programs, free-riding is possible. A prime example is health care: critically injured or sick people are required to be treated at hospital emergency rooms regardless of their immigration status. (This was a big issue that should have been addressed with health care reform this year… but because this issue is toxic, no one was willing to tackle it). I can wax passionate on the debate of illegal immigration because of the free-rider issue; but, of course, my proposed solution would be to work these people in, make them pay for these services, not let them suffer or die.

The thing that worries me is, I think that many people are passionate about this issue neither for the economic reason, which is typically—wrongly—posed as “they’re taking our jobs,” nor the free-rider problem. I think many simply hold a racist, disparaging view of Latinos*. Think about it. You probably know someone who uses racial epithets against Latinos or is otherwise clearly prejudiced. I know I do—many people, in fact, some of whom are family members. For a person who views Latinos negatively solely because they’re Latinos (regardless of immigration status), you can see how they would use the illegal immigration debate as an outlet.

If that doesn’t disturb you, it should. It means that a significant political and economic issue for our country that deserves clear thinking and rational debate is being strongly influenced by frank hatred. This is what causes legal immigrants in this country and “liberals” or rational thinkers like me to flinch a bit when a law like that of Arizona is enacted. The actual wording of the law is not really offensive; the purpose, however, is suspect.

* Note that I refer to Latinos only, although, obviously, people from Latin countries are not the only illegal immigrants. I think that most of this is being driven by immigration from countries south of the U.S. border, however.

GA's Banking Crisis: A Brief Response to Mr. Krugman

Hello-- just a brief response to an article written by Paul Krugman in yesterday's NY Times...  His article is here. 

Interesting analysis, as always from Mr. Krugman. I agree with most of the points throughout his article-- namely, that Georgia's many small banks got caught up in the real estate lending frenzy and that it was too easy for people to treat their houses like bank accounts, pulling out large sums of money via loans (which, as you might recall, is what we did to help start our business-- so, interestingly, for people like us, this was a positive result, economically speaking). But I disagree with one small point and, in fact, with the overall theme.


The small point first-- the fact that Georgia leads in bank failures is less indicative of Georgia suffering more than that Georgia just has/had so many banks. Banks (used to / now are) very tightly controlled on the federal level and used to be restricted to operating within local community areas, often defined by counties. As you might recall, Georgia has the most counties of any state in the U.S. Result? Lots and lots of small community banks. No one's going to bail those guys out-- when they go down, they go down. And, in fact, because the amount required to insure deposits is far lower than that required for big or even medium-sized banks, the FDIC is much less hesitant about coming in and shutting them down. So, the quantity of bank failures is not really a telling factor in my opinion.

The big point that Krugman seeks to make is that the crisis in Georgia is directly related to a lack of strong consumer protection laws. That may have contributed to some degree. But it seems to me that most of what was going on was that there was a massive supply of money to lend, which was caused in large part by there being a huge securitized lending market. That is, those securitized bonds were in demand by investors (artificially stimulated or not, doesn't matter for this purpose), resulting in banks eager to lend as much as possible to enable them to bundle them up and sell them. The small banks weren't the major players there, but I'm sure in order to compete, they had to loosen their lending practices as well. Thus, it was simply massive money supply that caused the problem nation-wide, not just here. If you note, though, the areas where the crisis has been "worst" are areas that over the last 10-20 years saw the most net population increase: Phoenix, AZ; Florida; Atlanta, GA; San Francisco area, CA; Dallas, TX; Las Vegas, etc. It's not because regulations were loose in these places, it's because that's where the builders (and people moving there) saw the most opportunity and built the most houses.

So, while I think that consumer protection might be great and all, I think it can't be considered more than a minor factor playing into the banking crisis.

Health care retort

Today, I got the following via email:


Dear Mr. President:

During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ringtone.

While glancing over her patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as "Medicaid"! During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer.

And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman's health care? I contend that our nation's "health care crisis" is not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. Rather, it is the result of a "crisis of culture", a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. It is a culture based in the irresponsible credo that "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me".

Once you fix this “culture crisis" that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you'll be amazed at how quickly our nation's health care difficulties will disappear.

Respectfully,

STARNER JONES, MD

Assuming that there is any truth to this email (and I tend to think that the “facts” are fabricated to make a point), one person’s misplaced priorities are not an indictment of health care reform. (And even people with wacked out priorities deserve medical care.) I agree that Medicaid fraud is an issue that should be addressed, and lord knows that when I worked at Atlanta Legal Aid, I had my share of clients who were on TANF and Medicaid but had nicer cellphones than I did.

This, however, is not what the President’s proposed healthcare reform is about. I can put a face on what it is about for you.

What healthcare reform is about is allowing middle class families like my own, particularly those who have self-employed wage earners or wage earners who work for companies that do not provide health insurance, to afford the health care that their families need. It is about allowing people both to have health insurance that is affordable and to access health care that is affordable, so that families do not have to make a choice between health care and other necessities.

Just as a for example, we have the cheapest health insurance that we can afford with a reputable carrier, yet we currently pay almost $700 a month for health care coverage that has a $5000 family deductible, plus an additional individual deductible for each person in the family, which means that the ACTUAL deductible is closer to $7500 a year. Since we had a child last year, I fully expect that our insurance company will raise that premium come review time in October without providing us any concomitant increase in services.

Health care reform is also about getting rid of pre-existing conditions clauses that force families like ours to pay thousands of dollars to correct a medical condition that our daughter was born with simply because she was so young that ANYTHING wrong with her was a pre-existing condition under our health insurance policy.

Health care reform is about eliminating pre-existing conditions clauses that mean that my mother-in-law can NEVER change insurance companies because she has had breast cancer. (And that also mean she pays a LOT for her coverage.) It is about preventing her insurance company from canceling her simply because she has been sick.

Health care reform is also about putting decisions back into the hands of patients and doctors, rather than allowing insurance companies to call the shots. Because of clauses that insurers are allowed to require in private insurance policies, we had to wait almost two years before having a second child because we could not get insurance to cover anything related to maternity without accepting a one-year waiting period. Our first policy was a piece of crap, and because we switched insurers to get better coverage for our family, we had to wait through not one but two one-year periods.

It’s very easy for people who can rely on group policies provided by employers or for people who have never had to use their insurance policies to think that everything works smoothly with the system. There are, however, great disparities in our health care system that must be addressed. Many families like my own are forced to pay a lot out of pocket for benefits that others get subsidized by employers or to risk bankruptcy by going without health insurance and taking the risk that someone in the family could need expensive, catastrophic care.

Certainly, there are cultural issues to address – Americans actually receive a lot of unnecessary health care services, and some people clearly have wacked out priorities – but the President’s proposed changes for health care reform are just the first step to fixing these problems, not the whole enchilada.

Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me…

Unless you are looking to get hurt by them.

Some news coverage here in Atlanta the past few days has focused on MARTA’s choice of names for its renaming of the MARTA lines in an effort to make them more user-friendly. Seems the MARTA folks – following in the footsteps of other major urban centers like NYC and London – chose to go with a basic color scheme of red, green, yellow, and blue as labels for the MARTA lines. Who could have an issue with that?

It’s apparently not as simple as primary colors. See, the yellow line goes into an area that has a large Asian population... And, clearly, MARTA is, at best, ignorant that it is making an allusion to the skin color of the residents of that area or, at worst, making an intentionally snide statement about the residents of that area... (Yes, you can read some sarcasm into that “clearly.”)

It’s just the yellow line creating the brouhaha. No one is asserting any racial association with the red line or political association with the green or blue lines. (Granted, there’s not a large Native American population in Atlanta; but the red line does run north to a pretty Republican area, and the green line runs through some of the most liberal, crunchy areas of Atlanta.)

And it apparently doesn’t matter that the yellow line goes through predominantly white neighborhoods and ends in a predominantly black area and that the same area highly populated by Asians is also highly populated by folks of various other ethnic backgrounds (lots of Spanish-speaking folks from various other Spanish-speaking countries there, too). No, clearly, if the yellow line goes to a neighborhood with a large Asian population, Asians should be offended because someone is pejoratively referencing their skin color. (And you can read some sarcasm into that “clearly,” too.)

Is the word “yellow” so politically loaded in this day and age that a primary color cannot be just a primary color? Seriously, I’m really asking. I mean, the other lines are red, green, and blue, people; they’re not red and yellow, black and white.

And what if they were red and yellow, black and white?

Even if there is some racial implication to the word “yellow” (and I will concede that there is), few people now living were around during the time that terms like “yellow peril” were being thrown around. I myself grew up singing Jesus Loves the Little Children, which talks about that particular spiritual leader finding all children “red and yellow, black and white” precious in his sight. And not too long ago, during the inauguration of a certain national leader, the Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, quoting a famous Civil Rights Era mantra, prayed for God to “help us work for that day when black will not be asked to give back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right.”

Nonetheless, Helen Kim, advocacy director for the nonprofit Pan Asian Center commented, “If a line going to the south side of the city was named the black line, I think you’d have a different outcome.”

Helen, Helen, Helen. I am not so sure. First of all, let’s be clear that MARTA is using primary colors, and, to be technically correct, black is not a primary color. Second, of the eight termination points for existing MARTA lines, five are in predominantly black areas, so singling out one line and calling it the “black line” couldn’t reasonably be interpreted as making some statement about the race of the population living at the end point of that line, intentionally or otherwise. Finally, Helen’s so wrapped up in what she views as the pejorative nature of the word “yellow” as a skin tone reference that she forgets that there’s no similar connotation with the word “black.”

I think I’ll side with Gary Gung (who, for the record, is Asian): “What difference does it make if it’s yellow, gold or black. Make the issue about the economy or something else more important.”

In my book, a yellow MARTA line is a yellow MARTA line.

To give credit where credit is due, my quotes from Ms. Kim and Mr. Gung come from this morning’s front-page Atlanta Journal Constitution article by Christian Boone.

Observations On Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Convention

On this, the day following the first (and likely last) Tea Party convention, I find myself once again amazed and perplexed by two not necessarily unrelated phenomena: the popularity of Sarah Palin and the vacuity of the self-proclaimed movement.

First, on Palin. Palin the person is now, for better or worse, one of those “personalities” the doings of whom will from now on be reported to us faithfully by the media, which, upon filing someone in this category, ensures that we will not escape such important details as Palin family dynamics and continuing baby drama involving her daughter or her son who has Down’s. Now, obviously, Palin is a political figure, and when she does political things like making appearances at political conventions, that’s deserving of reporting. But the media certainly does not have to report about how Palin feels about a presidential advisor’s potty mouth. To quote such an unnamed source, that would be “f***ing retarded.”

All right that was a bit of a ramble and a sidetrack. The thing that mystifies me about Palin is just how exceptionally average she is in a lot of ways—average in that she has about the same knowledge concerning foreign affairs and how government works as your average blue collar worker in America. Average in her intellect. Average—or perhaps mundane is the better descriptor—in her pursuit of the crass interpretation of the American dream: riches and power. Where she excels, however, is in connecting with people like her. Thus, the rousing movement that has thrust her to the top, like a rubber ducky on a tsunami. The problem is, she’s still just a rubber ducky.

Now, how about that rousing movement? According to organizers of the convention in Memphis (and granted, many tea party movers and shakers advocated boycotting it, so it is difficult to say what the orthodoxy is of the tea partiers beyond generally being pissed off), the movement stood for the principles of limited government, strong free markets, and a strong national defense. The attack on deficit spending likely is tied to the limited government idea, though that has not been laid out as such.

A few observations on these principles—incidentally, I have to quote the aforesaid presidential advisor once again on another thing he said yesterday (not of the potty-mouthed variety). In reaction to most Republican politicians tenaciously defending pork barrel projects and federal spending in their states and districts immediately following declarations of their outrage and steadfast determination to stand up to the out-of-control tax-and-spend Democratic Congress: “you can be firm on your opinions; it’s your principles you can be flexible on.” So true.

Okay, the observations:

1. Limited government. I think the most obvious interference of government in our lives has to be restrictions imposed on our personal liberty to engage in activities that do not interfere with the lives of others. You all know where I’m going here, right? That’s right! Gay marriage! Find me the heterosexual person whose life has been ruined by the gay couple down the street, and I’ll show you someone who has some severe mental problems. This issue has got to be one of the most obvious and clear examples of minority rights deserving of protection ever, right up there with guaranteeing equal rights to non-white people and women. Counter-arguments essentially come down to either a version of the religious views of a segment of the population being imposed on others (unconstitutional and unfair) or latent feelings of hatred. “I hate you” is not an effective argument and should not be countenanced.

So, how about the tea partiers views on this issue? Surely, with their strong beliefs in limited government, they’re on the forefront, right? Yes, of course I’m being facetious. Mainly—I think, that is, because it is difficult to tell—they’re upset about health care reform requiring a mandate to buy health insurance. Never mind that they already have to buckle their seat belts, buy auto liability insurance, wear hard hats in construction zones, get a permit to build a building, get a driver’s license to drive a car, get a gun permit to own a gun, etc., etc. Having to buy health insurance! Outrageous! By God, people have the right to go about their business uninsured!

You know what? This might work but for the fact that hospitals are required by law to treat people regardless of whether they have insurance or not. Maybe the tea partiers should advocate repealing that law. Then, at least, we would be saving some money. Of course, we’d have some pretty horrid stories about people dying in hospital parking lots. That probably would be pretty nasty. But, hey, they were free to buy or not buy health insurance, right?

Incidentally, I have to bring this up, because I keep hearing it and it’s just wrong: the contention that health care reform would force Americans to pay for the health care costs of illegal immigrants. Folks, we pay for the health care costs of illegal immigrants already when they drop in on our ERs and get treated. Again, if you don’t like it, you can change the law. But I don’t think that would be a good thing—people dying everywhere due to being denied at the hospital. It’s immoral. In fact, I think most doctors would consider it a violation of the Hippocratic oath not to treat someone in such dire circumstances. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, we can keep refusing to bring illegal immigrants into the system, but reform of any kind will not work until we do, because there is a huge illegal community out there and it is driving a concomitant huge amount of costs. Unfortunately, it is political suicide to advocate for anything that would benefit illegal immigrants.

2. Strong Free Markets. Generally, when people talk about “strong free markets” or “a vigorous free market system,” they mean removing regulations from free markets. That is, restoration of an unregulated free market system. I say “restoration” because that is what that would be, a return to late 19th century-style capitalism. You know, when we didn’t have things like child labor laws, environmental controls, anti-trust laws, work-safety regulations, food control laws, transparency laws (like financial disclosures), and anti-discriminatory laws.

Look, I think we saw where rolling back some regulations got us—perhaps the worst example of this was the partial repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in the late 90s, extended further in the early 2000s. (You can read about the Glass-Steagall Act, a bill that was passed in the 1930s to disentangle insurance and bank companies and prohibit certain bank investments here. Suffice to say, it was a pretty good law that I don’t think is a stretch to say probably would have prevented the financial collapse that occurred in 2008). And personally, I’m a fan of laws that prohibit abuses of employees or the accrual of tremendous economic power. In fact, my belief in anti-trust laws lead to my ultimate rejection of a career in economics, which subject at the time was dominated by Chicago school efficient market theory idealists. Not to go into this too much, but when it seemed to me that these brilliant people were assuming away all the hard stuff rather than dealing with it and then placing complex mathematical apparatuses on top of it—lending it, in my opinion, a faux appearance of great detail and accuracy—I had to jump ship.

Anyway, it is interesting and surprising to me that a strong free market tenet can be built into a populist movement in 2010, when it seems so clear that lack of regulation and actions taken to deregulate the financial community directly led to our present economic circumstances. But, hey, I guess people can be irrational sometimes. (Yup, that last sentence was internally referential and ironic, and I’m quite proud of it.)

3. Strong Defense. Well, we’ve got a strong defense, and the Pentagon’s budget went up some more this year. Has it ever gone down? We’ve also got two wars going on that we’re supporting. This is clearly not a controversial position to take—with the exception of people like Dennis Kucinich (he of the “Department of Peace”), it’s rare to find a politician who thinks we should have a “weak” defense or even who would propose reducing the Pentagon’s budget. I personally believe that we spend too much on ways to destroy things and people, but I wouldn’t want us to be taken unawares by a Nazi-like regime.

I have to link this to the budget deficit. I believe that if we crunched the numbers, if we took out the Iraq War—which was prosecuted based on a mistake, whether you support it now or not—and the recent economic collapse, we’d probably have a budget surplus at this point—or maybe we’d be just even. It certainly wouldn’t stand as it does now, over $1 trillion in the red. So, what I would ask the tea baggers is: do you support peremptory military intervention like the Iraq War or do you support deficit reduction, because you can’t have it both ways.

In sum, I think when you dig into the Tea Party movement, you find a lack of original ideas and a shallowness of thought. That is commonly the case with populist movements, I suppose—populist movements by their nature sink to the lowest common denominator of thought, otherwise they couldn’t have such wide appeal. They don’t call ‘em “populist” for nothin’!

Massachusetts and the Problem (?) with the Democratic Party

Okay, that title, or at least the second part of it, seems to suggest that this will be a lengthy political analysis of the struggles of the Democratic Party, illustrated by what may occur tomorrow in Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states in the union. Really, I just want to note a few things, particularly given the drama unfolding in that state.

First, some background for those not really paying attention. Following Ted Kennedy’s death, a special election was set to determine who would fill the remainder of his term in the U.S. Senate. Most people “in the know”—at least on the national stage—did not consider this a particularly important election, because, hey, we’re talking about a Democrat running for a statewide office in a deep, deep blue state, right? Well, as it’s turned out, a liberal Republican entered the fray (liberal in the way that Mitt Romney used to be liberal, as in, pro-choice and not anti-gay rights). His name is Scott Brown. He is opposing Martha Coakley, the state’s attorney general. Polls on the eve of the contest—tonight—indicate that Mr. Brown has a 75% or greater chance of winning.

The loss of Kennedy’s vacated Senate seat would give the Republicans 41 seats and the ability to filibuster any bill brought in the Senate. Linked directly to the current health care bill, this would allow the Republicans to defeat it by filibustering—tying it up in procedural red tape, essentially. Many political analysts and Democrats would view this result as “devastating” and point out the cruel irony that the former seat of the very man who was synonymous with health care expansion and reform would be used to ultimately defeat it.

And it would be a bad result. Substantively. However, politically, at least this year, it might just be the best thing that could happen to the Democrats.

Okay—that’s nuts, you say (maybe you say). Without a filibuster-proof majority, how will the Democrats get any kind of health care reform done or anything else for that matter? How will that possibly help them?

This way: the Republicans’ strategy for the last year or so has been to be the party of “no.” Any attempt to work with the Republicans—with the extremely rare exception (Susan Collins comes to mind)—has been met with a complete lack of cooperation, reaching out, any middle ground. Interestingly, even some of the supposed ideas of the Republican party which were incorporated in, say, the stimulus package (having more in tax cuts than direct spending) were basically rejected. To the Republicans in Congress, if the middle ground becomes too in the middle, they draw it back even further to the right.

It’s been an effective strategy, because the Democratic Party is a big, big tent. They have their own conservatives to wrangle with and their own hardcore liberals. Look at it this way: there are 60 Democrats versus 40 Republicans (currently) in the Senate. That’s a 3-2 ratio! Rarely have there been times in the history of this country where one party has dominated the legislature, particularly the Senate, which depends not on population but the states themselves to set their numbers. Has the country changed so much? I don’t think so. Most of the states that were liberal ten years ago are still liberal, and most of the states that were conservative are still conservative. With a few demographic exceptions—Virginia is a great example—mostly what happened is the Democrats successfully recruited moderates and conservatives to the party.

So, the Republican strategy of saying “no” was an effective short term* strategy—let them fight themselves and try to pass legislation (it’s hard). While they’re fighting amongst themselves, we can throw mud at them—and they’ll be too caught up in their own internal struggles to unify and politically defend themselves. (It helps also to be the minority party in a severe recession—the “throw the bums out” reaction works against the party of the majority simply as a matter of mathematics).

However, once the Republicans have 41 votes, the “no” strategy is severely disrupted, because it’s effective! It actually stops legislation. The Republicans can no longer take the stance that—hey, we tried, they passed it anyway. Nothing we could do. Now, the majority party must negotiate with the minority party to some degree, and the Republicans then become complicit in the results of legislation.

So, yes, I think this could actually work to the benefit of everyone in the long run. Democrats will stop their self-absorbed debate, and Republicans will be forced to come up with or participate in real solutions.

* Note that I’ve always thought that it was only good as a short term strategy, because once the economy turns around, who gets credit for it? It also causes you, if you’re a Republican, to be pushed into the awkward position of rooting against the economy. Ask some Democrats about uncomfortable and conflicted feelings about news from Iraq in 2004.

** As an aside, I just realized that I pointed out another ironic situation—the disruption of the Republicans’ policy of “no” because it becomes too effective! Wow, twice in one post. Perhaps I should try literary criticism… naaaaah.

All right, I suppose that is it for now. I’d better post this before it’s rendered completely irrelevant (I hope).

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year, everyone! Let’s hope that 2010 on a macro-scale is a much better year than 2009 was. I say, “on a macro-scale,” because, despite some rather poor economics in 2009, my son was born in November of 2009, thereby making it AT LEAST one of the three best years ever (the other years being 2006, when my daughter was born, and 1996, when my now-wife and I met).

Politically, I think we can expect 2010 to be even more divisive and vitriolic than 2009. 2010 is, after all, an election year. I suspect that we will see a health bill finally pass through Congress sometime in February, and we will likely have some kind of second stimulus plan of some kind. The economy seems to be doing a bit better, but unemployment remains high, and that will likely result in big gains for the Republicans in November.

Climate legislation is expected to be taken up after passage of the health care bill, which would mean March more than likely. It will be interesting to see how that goes. If the Republicans (and big oil and coal companies) are successful in portraying a climate bill as bad for the economy, then Democrats will once again be under extreme pressure supporting a somewhat unpopular bill, this time in much greater time proximity to the election, and so less time to distance or explain what the bill is about. One hopes that the political forces lined up against a climate control bill are unsuccessful. At least, the one writing this blog post hopes so. Climate change is real, first of all, and should be countered. Secondly, if the U.S. misses the boat on energy technology innovation, it could really set us a step behind the rest of the industrialized world.

In foreign affairs, we are still mired in two large-scale force deployments, one in Iraq, the other in Afghanistan. It seems as Iraq is waning, Afghanistan is waxing. However, the end or minimization of U.S. involvement in neither seems very imminent, though I suppose we could get most of our guys out of Iraq in the next couple of years. Afghanistan seems an open-ended occupation in some ways. Though the mission is more defined—counter-insurgency—achieving that goal may take years and might not end before the country loses patience (again). I fear that Afghanistan may dog the Obama administration for the length of its tenure.

Then there’s Iran. Cue Julie Andrews—“What do you do about a problem like Ahmadinejaaaaaddd?” The forces of Iranian resistance to the revolutionary regime seem to persist. Will they be able to successfully oppose the Republican National Guard and the clerics? I’d think not, but the protests and mini-revolt has been remarkably resilient—and we’re still talking about it 7 months later. Here’s hoping.

That’s all for now. I wish everyone a sublime or at least worry-free 2010!

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.