Tag: Obama

Takeaways From the Health Care Speech

Post author By David
Post date September 10, 2009
22 Comments on Takeaways From the Health Care Speech

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

photo credit: sgroi

Let’s pretend that we are starting from scratch on the health care overhaul push – that none of the existing proposals will be used as the template for a reform bill. In other words, let’s assume that the plan outlined in President Obama’s speech is the primary blueprint for the reform bill that Congress will have to consider. As I predicted he tried to strike a balance between being bold and rocking the boat too much calling both better and worse plans than his “a radical shift” that would be too much for something as economically large as the health care industry.

Now that I have read the entire speech I have four non-starters, one gem, two contradictions, and five questions after his speech that deserve public reaction. I’ll start with the non-starters because they are not non-starters put together, each one must be addressed before anything he proposes can be considered in any degree.

Tags current events, Elevated, health care, legislation, Obama, questions, reactions

General

Predictable

As a political junkie you would expect that I would be endlessly fascinated by all things political and that I would be very excited to listen to a speech by the President (even if only to find things to contradict when I disagree with him). Once upon a time that would have been true, but not anymore. While I am still anxious to be engaged in politics and the political dialog I find that too much of politics is very formulaic and predictable. I can easily say what the speech by the President will be like without even listening to or reading the transcript or any report about it.

In his speech tonight the president will talk about the importance and of Health Care reform. He will take time to rebut some of the more ridiculous rumors that have been circulated by his opponents and he will make his approach to health care seem perfectly reasonable – in fact he will be trying to strike a balance of being bold while not rocking to boat too much. The overall effect of the speech will be to make many people more comfortable with the approach he is taking while conveniently masking the fact that nothing in the current Health Care reform proposals actually addresses the real issues that plague our system of health care.

The only thing I can’t predict is whether enough people will be assuaged (or lulled into a false sense of security) to get a health care bill passed as the President hopes. While I will always hope for every president the best of success for the nation, this effort by the President shows no indication of promoting what is best for the nation (except in his words) and so I continue to hope that this effort flounders until the leaders of the country are ready to look at the actual problem and craft a solution to that problem within the limits of their authority rather than looking at their political goals and trying to convince the rest of us that their goals will solve real problems.

Tags change congress, current events, health care, legislation, Obama

National

Nobody Wants the Status Quo

Post author By David
Post date August 17, 2009
8 Comments on Nobody Wants the Status Quo

photo credit: planspark

Proponents of the current health care proposals charge that those who oppose these proposals only want the status quo. No honest Democrats have stepped forward to admit the truth that opponents of these measures have been offering alternatives and decrying the status quo. The leader among dishonest Democrats today is none other than President Obama (whom I have tried to refrain from specifically criticizing) who not only will not admit the truth about opponents of his preferred reform package but who goes further by holding “town hall meetings” where no opportunity for discussion is even considered (as do many of his followers) – these are not chances to discuss and enlarge public understanding of the issue, they are opportunities to indoctrinate the masses one town hall at a time.

Nothing I have said excuses the behavior of some protesters at many town hall meetings who are equally disinterested in any actual discussion, but any real leader would have to rise above such rabble and be willing to engage and explain rather than pontificate and cajole.

Among those speaking against the current reform proposals there is a common belief that has never been addressed by backers of the proposals – that the current prescription will actually be worse than the status quo (which they agree is not an acceptable situation). Not only are they speaking against the dangerous potential of the current direction but here are a few of the ideas that are not being offered to considered by our current leaders.

Tags civic participation, connections, discourse, Elevated, health care, Jim DeMint, Obama, Ron Paul, Wall Street Journal

National technology

White House Viral Email

The White House has decided to use a viral email (or at least an email they hope will go viral) to spread their health care reform message. In it they offer:

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.

It think it is important to get a non-spin version of their 24 points (really only 21). I will assume, as much as possible, that their claims are true and show what those claims really mean to the nation. As usual it’s not nearly as straightforward as any partisan claims would have you believe. (For example, they only offer 7 unique ways reform provides security, 7 unique myths – including one I had never heard, and 7 reasons for reform now – plus one generic platitude.)

Tags current events, health care, legislation, media, Obama, reactions

National

The Cost Issue is MIA

Matthew Piccolo has a good summary of some of the major issues that are attached to the current health care proposal. That seemed like a good complementary article to what I wanted to point out about the Health Care Reform Freight Train™ speeding through the halls of Congress – there is a major issue that has failed to be attached to the current discussion – cost reduction.

Back in ancient history (2007 through mid 2008), while the presidential election was in full swing but before the economy and the urgent need to bail out anyone with pockets deep enough to hold quantities of money starting with “$” and ending in “Billion”, health care was seen as the most important domestic issue on the campaign trail – does anyone remember that time? If you do you should remember that one of the few points of consensus on the issue between all parties was that health care was too expensive and that any attempt at a solution would have to include measures to cut the overall amount that we spend on health care. Here is a clip from Obama’s campaign website on the issue of healthcare:

we want to make health insurance work for people and businesses, not just insurance and drug companies.

Reform the health care system:
We will take steps to reform our system by expanding coverage, improving quality, lowering costs, honoring patient choice and holding insurance companies accountable.

Improve preventative care:
In order to keep our people healthy and provide more efficient treatment we need to promote smart preventative care, like cancer screenings and better nutrition, and make critical investments in electronic health records, technology that can reduce errors while ensuring privacy and saving lives.

(emphasis added)

Tags change congress, Elevated, health care, issues, liberty, money, Obama

National

GM Surprise (or not)

Back at the end of March David Brooks made a prediction for GM in the New York Times that came due today. I have been waiting to check in on that. He started with this background of the situation as it stood that day:

The Bush advisers decided in December that bankruptcy without preparation would be a disaster. They decided what all administrations decide — that the best time for a bankruptcy filing is a few months from now, and it always will be. In the meantime, restructuring would continue, federally subsidized.

Today, G.M. and Chrysler have once again come up with restructuring plans. By an amazing coincidence, the plans are again insufficient. In an extremely precedented move, the Obama administration has decided that the best time for possible bankruptcy is — a few months from now. The restructuring will continue.

But this, President Obama declares, is G.M.’s last chance. Honestly. Really.

No kidding.

With that background, Mr. Brooks’ reactions was this:

The most likely outcome, sad to say, is some semiserious restructuring plan, with or without court involvement, to be followed by long-term government intervention and backdoor subsidies forever.

Looking at the relevant news today (also from the New York Times) we find that the result is a restructuring plan with court involvement and long-term government intervention including continuing subsidies – initially at least the subsidies are anything but backdoor.

American taxpayers will invest an additional $30 billion in the company, atop $20 billion already spent just to keep it solvent as the company bled cash as quickly as Washington could inject it.

The imagery is all too apropos – like Fannie, Freddie, AIG, and the economy in general GM is and has been addicted to shooting up with public money to feel like a real free-market enterprise. Conveniently too many of our elected leaders are equally addicted to intervening in the markets in order to feel like they are performing a real job for the American tax payer.

Mr. Brooks called the President the “Car Dealer in Chief” in his predictive essay, and now that is more true than before:

Mr. Obama is taking several risks under the plan. None may be bigger than the decision that the United States government will take a 60 percent share of the stock in a new G.M., leaving taxpayers vulnerable if the overhaul is not successful. (Canada, for its part, is taking a 12 percent stake.)

“We don’t think that after this next $30 billion, they will need more money,” one senior administration official said. “But the fact is there are things you don’t know — like when the car market will come back, and how much Toyota and Honda and Volkswagen will benefit from the chaos.”

This is G.M.’s last chance. Honestly. Really. We hope.

Tags bailout, economics, government, money, New York Times, Obama, unconstitutional

National

U.S. and CA Supreme Court News

Post author By David
Post date May 26, 2009
No Comments on U.S. and CA Supreme Court News

The news came last week that the California Supreme Court would issue their ruling related to Proposition 8 so I expected to have a reaction to that news today. I saw news this morning that President Obama would make his nomination for a new judge to replace Justice Souter – that news surprised me. Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor. So far all I really know about her is that she is a Catholic, Hispanic female. I am not at all confident that we will ever have hearings in the Senate about a supreme court nominee that are more about qualifications than about politics, but if that day ever comes I am convinced that the founders were right to assign the task of confirmation to the Senate rather than the House or the people.

In California, the Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8. From what I had heard this ruling was not a foregone conclusion nor was it unexpected. The ruling provided answers to two related questions. One question was whether Proposition 8, which passed with 52% of the vote to define marriage in California as being between a man and a woman, was too far reaching to be added to the Constitution without the participation of the state legislature. As previously stated, the court denied that claim. The second question was whether the same-sex marriages performed before the passage of Prop. 8 would retain their legal recognition. On this the court unanimously agreed that they would still be recognized.

Regardless of my personal opinion on the legitimacy of same-sex marriage (just like the justices are supposed to make their rulings based on the law rather than their own personal feelings) I believe that the court ruled correctly on both questions. I believe that the question embodies in Prop. 8 is perfectly within the right and ability of the people to decide. I also believe that because the same-sex marriages performed before the passage of Prop. 8 were legal based on a previous ruling at the time they were performed the state must feel obligated to recognize those existing marriages (its the principles of ex post facto laws). The only way they could have annulled those existing marriages were if they were to rule that their ruling from last year was in error – which I expect they never will.

Tags California, gay marriage, New York Times, Obama, Prop 8, Supreme Court

culture National

Our Broken Debate

The big question in the debate over torture right now is “who knew what and when did they know it?” That question is being used by Republicans right now to implicate Speaker Nancy Pelosi as having done nothing with what she knew and thus being complicit in any torture committed under the previous administration. The question and implications are very important questions that are worthy of debate in this country. The reason that I consider the debate to be broken is that the debate is avoiding the real substantive issue and just taking political potshots at the opposing party.

The fact is that speaker Pelosi is not in any way the only hypocrite in this debate – she is not the only one who knew and did nothing until it was politically advantageous. Democratic officeholders have been muttering under their breath (or less) about what the Bush administration was doing until Obama was elected and released the torture memos. In response the CIA is trying to defend themselves from these vocal attacks by revealing that Pelosi knew about this activity years ago.

If the Democrats were more interested in standing against torture in principle than they were in scoring political points and retaining personal power they would have been much more vocal about this issue. Speaker Pelosi would have been saying things like, “based on briefings I have had I am completely uncomfortable with what the administration is doing and willing to do to detainees through the CIA.” (Note that while that statement would open the door for discussion nothing in there would raise any national security concerns.) She would not have been alone either – other Democrats who had been briefed would also have stood up and echoed that sentiment if they had any backbone and cared about the issue. Senator Diane Feinstein would have been one of those who had also been briefed. I don’t know who else had been briefed, but all of them are guilty of doing nothing if they were uncomfortable with what they heard.

On the other hand, if the Republicans were interested in anything other than scoring points against their political opponents they would be naming the Republicans who had been briefed who were equally complicit with Speaker Pelosi. Republican officeholders have proven that they are perfectly content to have spineless and complicit representatives in office so long as they support the party line. They show that as a body they have no problem with institutionalized secrecy rather than open representation for their constituents and the other voters of the United States.

The voters need to demand that their representatives, whether of their own party or another party, quit playing politics in Washington and stick to the very serious business of leading our nation on to increased greatness – we should again be a shining city on a hill that the world can look to as an example of goodness. That can only happen if we quite trying to score political points and start having real debates about what is right and what constitutes greatness.

Tags Bush, change congress, discourse, Elevated, house, ideals, media, Obama, parties, senate

National

Judicial Appointment

Yesterday I wrote about the president’s power to nominate people for important positions in government. Today we get the news that Justice David Souter will be retiring. (This is doubly convenient as the remaining federalist papers deal with the judicial branch of our government.) I don’t intend to speculate on who the president will nominate but there are a few things we can learn from this confirmation hearing.

During the 2004 election cycle there were a number of conservatives talking up the importance of re-electing Bush because of the probability that at least one justice would be nominated in the next four years. Obama himself said last fall that the selection of a new justice would be “one of the most consequential decisions of the next president.” One difference between Obama and Bush in relation to the opportunity to make a supreme court nomination is that Obama will have a Senate majority large enough to prevent a filibuster (assuming that Al Franken is seated from Minnesota). This means that Obama may not feel any need to moderate his choice as Bush knew that he must. Bush knew that he could not nominate anyone who was too conservative for the Senate. Obama will know that there is virtually nobody with any qualification who is too liberal for this Senate.

Assuming that this confirmation goes smoothly and that the selection proves to be reliably liberal (the new justice can always surprise people on that score), I think we might know what to expect in the next few years in the Supreme Court. The most senior justice, Justice John Paul Stevens, is on the liberal side of the court and is 89 years old. If there is a fresh liberal justice from our new president and a solidly Democratic senate in place I would be very surprised if he did not choose to retire before 2012 (or even before the 2010 elections). I would also not be surprised to see Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg choose to retire. Like Justice Stevens she is on the liberal side of the court and while she is not the next most senior justice she is the second oldest at 76 and might want to ensure that her replacement is also liberal (especially if at least one other justice is a woman by then) before there is a chance of electing a Republican president or having Democrats lose any seats in the Senate.

Tags 2010, 2012, New York Times, Obama, Supreme Court

National

Obama’s First 100

Today is day number 100 for the Obama Administration. This has been a benchmark of measurement for every administration since FDR. There will be lots of stories in the political media attempting to measure how he is doing as a president. This morning on NPR they perfectly captured the measure in only six words:

His backers give him high marks.

I add my own perspective as someone who is not sold on Obama but holds out hope that he will eventually do the best job he could do by focusing on those areas where he is right (things like real increased transparency in government). My position is largely unchanged from when Obama was elected and when he was sworn in.

If we simply add the fact that those who oppose him give him low marks we can easily see the correct answer to “how is Obama doing in his first 100 days?”

The answer is that 100 days is too soon to tell how Obama will fare over the course of 1461 days (or 2922 days for two terms). This is perfectly typical. We could not have known after 100 days what things Bush was going to do well and which things he was going to botch horribly over his two terms. The same can be said of Clinton or any of his predecessors.

So, Happy 100 Days Mr. President. May my greatest hopes for your tenure be realized or at least may we come closer to my greatest hopes than we come to my greatest fears.

Tags Bush, Clinton, history, media, NPR, Obama