John Maynard Keynes said, “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.”

Ben Bernanke, of the Federal Reserve, tells us that the market will cause the too-big-to-fail banks to get smaller. He assures us that the people who caused this mess just need to be left to their own devices for the problem to be solved.

Did Ben listen to Alan Greenspan’s comment that he had been wrong to think that the market and self-interest would manage everything for the best? Alan. Give Ben a call.

How long has it been since 1984, the book? Do I remember it correctly? Good is bad. Up is down. White is black.

The Obama economic team has put together another stimulus plan. Wonderful. How do they propose to do it? Put the emphasis and the money into business, so they will create new jobs.

Wasn’t it the businessmen who kept the 22% increase in productivity during the Bush administration to themselves? Household incomes went down as productivity rose. So, business should get the stimulus? They sent jobs abroad. So, they should get the stimulus? They destroyed our manufacturing base, our middle class, jobs and our economy. So, they should get the stimulus?

The idea seems to be to give them tax breaks. Hmmm. You’ve undoubtedly heard that we have the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Well, actually it’s the second highest. Those anti-business Japanese have the highest, so their manufacturing base, middle class, jobs and economy must be worse than ours. Au contraire.

Here’s another dirty little secret. It makes no difference whatsoever what your tax rate is if you don’t pay it. Over two-thirds of corporations in the U.S., domestic, multinational and foreign, pay zero corporate tax. Really? Yes, really. That means while we have the second highest tax rate, we actually have the lowest effective taxes.

How much lower can we go? Aren’t two-thirds of the corporations going to be jealous when we cut the taxes of the other third? Will we need to subsidize those already not paying taxes? Oh. It turns out we already are.

What about those small businesses? Don’t they deserve a break because they create most of the jobs? True, they create most of the jobs. But, they are heavily skewed to low-paying jobs that replaced those good jobs sent overseas. They usually don’t offer medical benefits. That should have been a major impetus for healthcare reform. Real reform would have eliminated employer-based healthcare.

The bankers are sitting on approximately $2 trillion that they refuse to loan. Most businesses have experienced somewhat of a recovery. On the whole business is showing reasonable profitability. Now they need to show their claimed risk-taking and job-creating ability. They are presently a major drag on the economy.

We are told by the plutocracy’s bootlickers that the Bush tax cut for those with incomes over half a million must remain, else the apocalypse is imminent. Facts always seem to get in the way of the do-dos. The income of more than 60% of small business owners is at or below $170,000. For those making more than $250,000 a year, a small business is not their sole, or primary, income source.

It seems we could easily cut the taxes on the leisure class. It would only cost us $700 billion plus infinite interest over the next ten years. It would provide negligible stimulus but these people aren’t really drawing unemployment. However, the big Boehner . . . objection is to a stimulus of $50 billion for infrastructure. It would create the problem of actually stimulating the economy and providing jobs.

Just leave the economy to the bankers and unemployers. The market, their supreme intelligence and the politicians they own will make everything right – for them. They have a sound bite for everything, whether or not it’s apropos. I needn’t have said whether or not it’s true. There is never a question. It is always untrue. Their playbook is 1984.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Perhaps you’ve heard people complain of the government being too big. It isn’t just that they think smaller government works better. Most express a hatred for the government – their government.

They are fortunate not to get their wishes granted. Here is the word of the day for them.

dystopia (noun)

1. A vision of a future that is a corrupted (usually beyond recognition) utopian society.
2. State in which the condition of life is extremely bad as from deprivation or oppression or terror.

Dystopian is one of those words you rarely see after graduation. It’s easy to remember the meaning. It’s simply the opposite of utopia.

Let’s imagine a society that meets with the approval of libertarians and other middle school idealists. They really enjoy the fantasy of the Mad Max movies. They might be less enthusiastic about the reality of Somalia. Can you imagine grownups with Mel Gibson as their hero?

Their laments become tiresome very quickly. Why do I think of one of my spoiled grandchildren intent on crying until they get their way?

Don’t try to visit that Somalian paradise by sea. Remember, that’s where all of the pirate activity is. Your arrival may be delayed. Personally, I would experience some trepidation about their ability to provide safe aircraft. Of course we would be better off with less government, just as Somalia.

Back home the power of these backward people looking people has given us some of the pleasures of small government. That philosophy kept the FDA from actually regulating those egg producers in Iowa. Would you like them over easy, scrambled or poached, with or without salmonella? That’s what we need, smaller government.

We would be oh so fortunate if eggs were the only food whose safety was questionable. What was the last scare? Hamburgers? How about a tomato on that burger? Does smaller government save you money so you can buy more hamburgers?

Growing up there was a local grocery chain owned by the same guy that owned the largest local newspaper. He was a rabid government hater. He was going to do what he wanted to do. His stores put formaldehyde in the hamburger meat. Why? It kept it red longer.

Formaldehyde is not usually thought of as a food coloring. It caused what was called hardening of the arteries. Sometimes it caused death. That pesky government told him to stop. He didn’t. They fined him, again and again.

Frank had enough. If memory serves (this was in the 1950s) he didn’t sell the business. He just closed it down. Boy does that burger taste better with small government.

The Chinese put melamine in our pet food. They put it in their baby formula. Don’t feel safe too quickly. That company’s NASDAQ-listed stock went down so much there was talk of it being acquired by Nestle or H.J. Heinz, as a cheaper supplier of their baby formula. Trust Nestle’s and Heinz’s judgment. They both prefer small government.

Okay, so you don’t eat. Are you one of those people who travels? That terrible government built the roads, the bridges, the tunnels, the airports, etc. Without the government interference you probably wouldn’t need a car. We would starve local governments by eliminating their revenue from parking meters.

And we wouldn’t want the government to help with the severe shortage of horses that would be necessary to replace cars. At least we wouldn’t have to listen to those people criticizing the government for not solving the Gulf oil spill. With small government we needn’t worry about $4 per gallon for gasoline.

Isn’t it awful that your kids are required to have shots? Whatever happened to those cute iron lungs? Just one more thing that big government helped take away from us.

Who would show up if you could call 911? The kid with the rocket? If the government was small enough, we wouldn’t have phones, or 911.

Prior to the implementation of “healthcare reform” the government pays for 45% of all healthcare in the US. That doesn’t even count the tax subsidies corporations get for providing health insurance. There would have to be lots and lots of doctors and nurses applying to cook fries at McDonald’s if the government got out. What would we do with all of those big empty hospitals? They would probably seem like good shelters to the homeless. Another problem solved by small government.

You love your kids. Do you love them enough to spend all day every day with them? You could teach them your version of history. You could teach them your version of English and economics and physics and calculus. The government is too big when it babysits your kids part of the time.

Because of the influence of these people and the money from the corporate world we already enjoy some of the benefits of small government. I know the miners in West Virginia appreciate that the government has insufficient staff and authority to bother their bosses.

We can’t help but applaud that less than half of our combatants in Afghanistan are a part of the government. The others have freedom to ignore our silly laws and treaties and chain of command.

Have you done the math? Letting everyone have a gun would save lots of money that we presently waste on judges, courts, lawyers, police, jails and prisons. Do it yourself can also relieve your stress.

Smaller government? I’m convinved.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Thirteen states have filed a lawsuit claiming that the healthcare bill is unconstitutional.

Will they win or are they just wasting taxpayers money in an attempt to look good to their political bases? If you guessed the later, you didn’t require anyone to read this to you.

Given that we have five Supremes who can’t differentiate between human beings and things that human beings create, anything is possible. By the way, since voting is the most important form of free speech, why have corporations never voted? Sorry, I didn’t mean to give them any ideas.

Even if the courts were to rule in the favor of these thirteen grandstanding attorneys general, they can’t win.

They claim that it is unconstitutional to require people to purchase private health insurance. If someone doesn’t have health insurance, others must pay for it out of their taxes. The requirement is a protection measure for the rest of us.

Don’t get me wrong. I have no desire to see people forced to give these private monsters more money. This law, as presently configured, gives these corporations an additional 31 or so million customers. That is estimated to increase their bank accounts by some $70 billion annually. No. I definitely am not pleased with that.

Having the public option is less rational than Medicare-For-All but it would at least provide an alternative for many of this 31 million and others. Most of that $70 billion would not go to the leeches. We have been promised that the Congress will amend the law to include the public option.

So, there is a possibility that the courts could rule in their favor. What happens? This law, as with most others of any complexity, includes a separability clause. That means, if the courts rule against any part of it, the entire law is not scrapped. The remainder remains.

Interestingly, the suit cites no case law or precedent. Why? Because there is none. Federal law overrules state law.

Under the commerce clause of the Constitution the government has broad, unchallenged power to regulate interstate commerce. Interstate commerce has historically been interpreted very broadly. Also, the right of the government to tax has been firmly established.

Even given the present makeup of the Court, there is almost no likelihood that the attorneys general can prevail with this suit. A few may prevail in their races for the governor’s seat in their state based on the publicity they will garner.

The solution, should the courts rule in their favor, is to offer the public option, or make a public program mandatory. All the former would do is offer a better deal at less cost by eliminating about 30% of the costs that unnecessary overhead represents. Making it mandatory simply means reducing the amount one pays for coverage and calling it a tax rather than a premium. The courts have already ruled that Social Security, Medicare, et al., are constitutional.

So, if they win, and their win brings a public option or Medicare-For-All, what have they won?

America’s Favorite Loon, Michelle Bachmann, or as she calls herself on her web site, Amaricas Congress Woman, has introduced a bill which calls the healthcare bill unconstitutional. If she can’t spell America’s correctly or punctuate it correctly or doesn’t know that Congresswoman is one word, her bill may need the services of an editor.

Were it anyone else, save Sarah, we would consider her to be doing this only for its symbolic effect. She, however, seems convinced that the bill will succeed. How she will attain majorities in either house no one can explain. Then, either the President must sign it or his veto must be overridden by a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress. I would be hesitant to put too much money on any of those possibilities.

Then we have the Republican leadership saying that the passage of this bill is the death knell of the Democratic Party. Before passage they were exhibiting great concern for the welfare of the Democrats (pun intended). Their solicitude was impressive and heartwarming. Despite their concern for the wellbeing of their compatriots they intend to take advantage of this misstep by the Democrats by running on the position of repealing the healthcare bill.

I can see their logic. The people will swarm to their standard in order to reinstate the bar by the insurance companies of preexisting conditions. Their support will be overwhelming for reimposition of annual and total limitations of coverage.

Kids up to the age of 26 want to be independent. They will flock to the sides of the Republicans freeing them from sharing their parents coverage. Geezers like me will truly appreciate their efforts if we don’t have to worry about what to do with all of our money. We can just luxuriate in the do-nut hole and let the drug companies do all of that worrying.

I think those cagey Republicans have discovered the magic talisman of electoral politics.

Silly suit? Of course. But look to the source. To paraphrase Forrest Gump, “Silly is as silly does.”

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

If you stay to the end of this post, you will see an offer you can’t refuse – no strings attached.

My last post was about a health issue, not healthcare reform. Writing so frequently on healthcare reform and the economy has built up a tremendous reserve of frustration.

I wanted to take a psychic break by expounding on other subjects but it seems not to be possible to get away from these matters. Storming once more into the breech they come again to the subject of reform.

Just now I feel more inclined to address the method than the substance. Could it be that there is so little substance to speak to?

I can’t help but wonder if anyone in Washington actually knows the definition of the word reconciliation. The dictionary says it is the reestablishing of cordial relations. All I see is animosity and hostility. How could a spirit of reconciliation engender such enmity and division? So, with the understanding that the term itself is inappropriate, let’s get on to the real problem.

That problem is the disdain so many Senators have for democracy. They seem to think that their prerogatives are more important than representing the needs and opinions of the people.

While the people have been confused, frustrated and angered at the shenanigans taking place in Congress, the majority still support the need for reform and, specifically, the public option. Many of those opposed do so out of a misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the problems and possible solutions.

Throwing around such accusations as this being an attempt to take over healthcare or mischaracterizing it as socialism come from ignorance or deliberate lies. The government has Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, medical care for the active military and veterans, coverage for civilian employees and other programs which it operates or for which it pays. It also subsidizes, through tax breaks, most private policies. The government already pays for 45% of healthcare costs, not including the subsidies.

The private insurance industry is permitted to skim off the cream. It is allowed to reject anyone they wish. They reserve the right to not pay the costs for whatever they wish to avoid. They skim the money to provide their executives multimillion dollar salaries and bonuses, private jets, lavish parties and such. Can you guess who bears the brunt of their exercise of these privileges?

At this time, several companies are attempting to increase premiums in a range from 22% to 59%. This while they are reducing the actual total amount they are paying out for your health care. Last year our health costs amounted to 17.3% of our entire economy. My untutored guess is that the above-cited increases might make the economic burden even greater. You get another guess as to who will get screwed.

Takeover? No. This is an attempt to provide almost everyone with health care and save our economy. As a nation, we cannot afford to rank 37^th in the world in health care. Nor can we afford an ever greater percentage of our total resources being designated as profits for the industry that has put at such a lowly ranking.

We shouldn’t forget the millions they spend on bribes. Is it possible this is a consideration when these “public servants” refuse to permit democracy to exist in the chambers of the Senate?

This talk of reconciliation may actually result in a vote. Even more important than the outcome of that vote is the fact that it will provide us undeniable evidence of who hates democracy and has no concern for their constituents. Every one of those opposing reconciliation needs to be thrown out of office. If your Senator opposes it, you have an obligation to yourself, your family, your country and the Constitution to oppose them. Yes, it is that simple.

My apologies for the preachy tone but it comes from frustration with our elected officials.

Now for the free offer. As mentioned earlier, my last post was on a health issue. It was one that is mired in misinformation. My book, Why Are You Mad?, is on the subject of mental illness. While this subject is not of interest to everyone, it does contain some nutrition information that is of universal concern. It speaks to another area drowning in misinformation: fats, saturated, polyunsaturated, monounsaturated, the whole panoply.

So, to anyone interested, I am offering a free copy of my book. Just send me an email and I will attach a copy of the book to the return. It will be in the form of a PDF file. If anyone prefers an actual dead tree version, I will send you one for $10 – $8 off of the retail price.

Why am I doing this? I did not spend 14 years of research and almost 3 years writing it because I wanted it to make money. I wrote it to provide as many as possible with an understanding of the subject. For those not interested in the overall subject, I feel that the dietary information is likewise of importance, but to everyone.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I‘m afraid we need to get back to basics. One would think that people understood insurance.

There are many valid complaints concerning “healthcare reform.” Those focused on insurance are not among them.

That doesn’t stop them from complaining. Some complain for political reasons. Others complain because they don’t understand what insurance is, how it works and what it is supposed to do.

Many of the young are complaining loudly that they should not be compelled (mandated) to purchase healthcare insurance. They say they are healthy. They say they shouldn’t be forced to pay for healthcare they do not need and will not use.

Insurance is supposed to be a way of sharing risks. If only the decrepit buy it, everyone in the pool will share the high costs. What is the advantage of that? Insurance needs to cover those who won’t be making claims in order to make the costs affordable.

Politicians have played to the unwashed for decades, saying that Social Security should be voluntary. Okay. So, who would opt out? The bulk of those opting out would be the very ones who would most need assistance during their “golden years.” We aren’t going to let them starve at the curb in front of our house.

Instead, we would pay for them through one of the welfare programs. We would do that rather than have them contribute to the costs during their productive years. Those who would opt out would save themselves money and force everyone else to pay their share.

What holds true for Social Security also obtains with health insurance. First, there is no guarantee that the young will not get sick. Second, when they do grow up they will appreciate having someone share the burden, particularly at a time when most have a fixed and/or limited income.

In that first case, those who have bought in, the ones who already have high healthcare costs, would be forking over for those kids unlucky enough to become ill. There is more than a remote possibility that those who are now young will get old. There is also more than a remote possibility that they will then see the merit of sharing their costs with people who only need the insurance, not the actual care.

Now, let’s look at this from another perspective. The bills that the Congress has before it are not simply means of providing healthcare to more people. Those bills require people not to pay for their heathcare. They require people to give money to private insurance companies. This isn’t quite the same as requiring people to pay into the publicly-run Social Security.

Requiring people to make purchases from private, for profit corporations is more than a slippery slope. It is an enormous, bottomless pit. What philosophical justification could there possibly be? There would be just as much justification for the government to require us to all purchase rings from a small number of jewelers. The jewelers would be largely free to decide how many carats those diamonds must be. They could also set the prices they want.

Perhaps Walmart could scrape together enough bribe money to get Congress to pass a law for its benefit.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

In a very busy schedule I devote some time and effort to a blog for which I receive no monetary remuneration. Why?

I have a degree of knowledge and experience in some of these areas. My intent is to share the resulting, hard won perceptions on matters I consider important. Others have different backgrounds and differing perceptions.

Admittedly, I derive a measure of satisfaction from providing viewpoints that readers might not otherwise consider. The blog has received as many as 577 visits on a single day. I value each and every reader.

Sadly, I have only two readers who are inclined to provide feedback on a regular, or irregular, basis. These two are highly prized. They are not prized because they always agree. I am a true iconoclast. If someone agreed with me on every matter, one of us would be unnecessary.

Therefore, a recent comment from one of the two disturbs me greatly. To reiterate, my discomfort is not the result of a disagreement. It comes from a misapprehension of my intent.

I feel compelled to respond in a longer format than would be appropriate in the comment area. I wrote what for me was a short blog on areas of disappointment I have with the President. Cheryl’s response was succinct: “Who are you and what did you do with Crawford?” I devoted the next four posts to elaborating on those areas.

Cheryl then sent me the following comment:

I don’t know, but it seems like everyone wants to play arm chair President. My goodness, the country is a mess. He cannot do everything at once. He cannot wave a magic wand and fix everything in one clean sweep. It’s not like the president has authority to just change everything he desires. I am really tired of everything he does getting picked apart by everyone. I am astounded (yeah, I know I shouldn’t be) by how unfaithful people are to others. I voted for President Obama and I, for one, am standing behind him. He has already done much good. Why does everyone think it’s their obligation to trumpet how they believe he handles every matter?

I don’t know how to send this privately, so I’ll just have to send it this way and you can ‘moderate it.’ I am deleting this site from my favorites because I am tired of all the negativity about our president. I really bet there are a couple of things he’s doing well. Thank God we don’t have McCain and that silly traveling ex-governor in the White House. “Bomb bomb bomb Iran?” “I can see Russia from my house so I know how to protect America.” Yeah, that would be much better, huh? Well, keep all the trashing of Obama and we’ll get another 8 years of what we just had.

First, anyone is welcome to send me a private email at crawford@crawfordharris.com.

Cheryl,

As you say, the country is a mess and he cannot do everything at once. I could not agree more and I don’t believe in magic. Many people do expect the President to accomplish matters that are actually the responsibility of the Congress or others. As one who has held public elective office and holds a degree in Political Science, I am not in that group.

All presidents are the focus of the citizenry, and rightly so. That focus is for hopes, dreams and ideals. They are also the focus of criticism. Given that presidents are human, some of that criticism will be warranted. Some will not be justified. Obama has been the target of far more than a fair share of the later. But criticism can be constructive and instructive. I hope that all of mine so qualifies.

I too voted for Obama. But, I voted for what he represented more than for him as an individual. The presidency is not an individual. He is the embodiment of the executive obligations of our system. From my training and experience I see the role of the citizen to require participation in a public dialogue. It isn’t just our right. It is our obligation. That dialogue is, or should be, the energy that drives our system. It makes it possible to improve upon what the Founding Fathers gave us.

We have made improvements: abolition, women’s rights, civil rights and others. But, as you said, the country is a mess and requires considerably more improvement. I would not consider myself a responsible citizen were I to just accept matters as they are.

I don’t see myself as being unfaithful. If a friend had a booger hanging from his nose, I would consider it an act of friendship to tell him. Sure, Obama does many things well. He is an improvement of several magnitudes over his immediate predecessor and several less immediate ones.

Having been a journalist, I have heard the frequent complaint of the dearth of ‘good’ news. News is, almost by definition ‘bad’ news. We shouldn’t stand around waiting to read a news item that a dog didn’t bite a man.

I too get tired of all of the criticism, mine included. It is personally debilitating and enervating. When I began this blog I listed nine topic areas plus the catchall of Whatever. I desperately want to comment on many other subjects but the economy, healthcare and war have dominated the national dialogue.

I have, on too rare occasions, commented on the deaths of two friends, my college English professor, my trip to Scotland, etc. Believe it or not, I have other interests on which I would like to pontificate. I feel acutely that I am becoming Poor Johnny One Note. I would welcome questions from readers on the other listed topics and suggestions for posts that they might enjoy.

I hope that my criticism is more than simple complaining. I intend it to be instructive. I want to provide information and background and a different, considered perspective for readers who must devote their energies to responsibilities and interests that don’t leave them the time and opportunities I have had on the discrete subjects of my posts.

I hope, not that you find my takes always correct. Rather, I hope that they may provide the impetus for the reader to explore their own position in a different, hopefully broader, context.

I do have one special point of appreciation for President Obama. I will be eternally grateful to him for saving the country from McCain and his biggest mistake.

If you need to cut down on your dosage of negativity, I’ll understand but I hope you only reduce it, not eliminate it.

I appreciate the chance to speak to your concerns and hope I assuaged them to some extent.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I saw thousands of sheep on my recent trip to the Highlands of Scotland. Most were just grazing on the hillsides. A few were being herded, by border collies, men or both.

If I had more time I would have stopped and asked them if they really wanted to be herded to the slaughterhouse. They, of course, didn’t get to pick their leaders.

I had thought we were different. I thought we picked our leader November last. Apparently I was mistaken.

President Obama is an accomplished academic. He is an accomplished speaker. He has many attributes but he is not a leader. He may see himself as such, or he may not but he is not.

He knew how to select an outstanding team of campaigners. He does not know how to select a team of governing advisers. He relied on the conventional wisdom in picking a staff and cabinet. Conventional wisdom is what is responsible for our current predicament on a broad range of issues.

He selected Rahm Emanuel to lead his political efforts. Rahm is a right-of-center DINO. He might be acceptable if he were given specific direction, rather than being given his head. Given the latitude to operate as he sees fit, it is becoming more and more apparent that he has taken this administration to a point barely distinguishable from the previous one.

During this administration’s tenure there have been over 500 visits to the White House by the powers-that-be of the health industry. His staff is rife with people from that industry. So, we have not gotten the promised healthcare reform. And, we will not get it. The bills being considered by the Congress are best described as health insurance reform; reform that significantly enriches that industry.

The health industry, aside from perhaps 59% of the physicians, have no interest in your health, only your money. Where is the reform? Where is the relief from increased costs in the most expensive system ever devised? Where is the longer life expectancy, the lower infant mortality, the next miracle drug when Viagra’s patent expires?

Even more than the case with healthcare the President has cast his lot with the thieves who created our economic difficultlies. He has given free rein to those who have impoverished us while feathering their own nests. Who leads his economic team? Larry Summers, the fired President of Harvard who ignored warnings and cost that university’s endowment $1.8 billion. And that was not even the reason for which he was fired.

How about killing our kids? Sending 30,000 more targets to Afghanistan will not provide a “win.” The costs of Iraq and Afghanistan would have more than paid for real healthcare reform. Money spent on unnecessary wars enrich the military-industrial complex and impoverish the nation.

Out of about five million votes in the recent Afghani election 1.3 million had to be thrown out. It would not be unreasonable to think that even more votes were of questionable provenance. To protect, defend and depend upon such a discredited group of warlords and drug dealers seems less than advisable. The people of that benighted conglomeration of fiefdoms see us as invaders and occupiers. Will they respond by spreading palm leaves in the path of an additional 30,000 foreign invaders, bedecking the 30,000 additional occupiers with leis?

Has any active military field commander ever wanted fewer troops? Has any military commander ever admitted they could not win? Has any military commander ever declared that there was nothing to win? No, but let’s abdicate leadership and let the professionals convince us they can destroy the Viet Cong Taliban if only they had another twelve million men, 403 more years and no interference from our elected leaders.

I just saw the headline: Karl Rove On Obama Plan: ‘Stand Up And Applaud.’ At least some people are pleased with Obama’s leadership.

The polls say that the economy is the number one issue for the country. With more than 15 million unemployed, it is no surprise that jobs constitute the primary concern of most people. So, what have these titans of Wall Street designed for us? Well, there was the stimulus package. So far, $100 billion of that $787 billion has been spent. Oh, they also handed out $90 billion in tax refunds. Leaderless incompetence – the Daily Double.

I was one of those that had hope. I voted for change. Silly me.

When we, as a country, are headed in the wrong direction, we don’t magically come to some unanimous conclusion as to which way to turn to avoid disaster. We have to depend on a leader to show us the way. But what happens when the leader quits (are there any Sarah fans out there to explain this to us)? What happens when the ones who led us (sold us) down the road are richly rewarded for their avarice and hubris and kept in those same positions? Would you believe that they failed to experience a teachable moment? Would you believe they continued down the path that had proven so rewarding to them?

People put themselves forward for the presidency for various reasons. Some do it simply out of ambition. Others have some agenda to promote. Some because they thought daddy was entitled to a second term. No one wants to be president because they think it is easy. Few who seek the office are really qualified. The position requires several attributes. The primary one should be leadership, particularly in troubled times.

Maybe leaders are born, not made. I hope that is not necessarily the case. But, ironically, hope is all we have.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

You have been sold down the river. So have we all.

We need to differentiate between healthcare reform and tinkering with health insurance. Yes, there is a difference. The entire burlesque these past few months has revolved around the tinkering.

A handful of congressmen offered HR 676, Medicare-For-All. That represents reform. All of the rest of our political entertainment has been farce and sleight of hand.

I will get to the parts that all of you younger folk are concerned about but first let me speak to one that is of more consequence to us geezers. That would be a part of the “secret deal” between al-PhRMA, the White House and Max Baucus – the do-nut hole.

I had the chance to do some more reading of the Senate version of healthcare. It really is quite interesting despite being written in a language no human has ever mastered.

For anyone unfamiliar with the do-nut hole, let me explain. Medicare Part D was a present from the Bush administration to the drug pushers and insurance companies. Not only was it unfunded, it costs the government more than any of the “reform” plans that came out of either house of Congress.

A senior has a choice of insurance plans covering most, not all, prescription drugs. In my case the choice was among 50-odd plans. You are required to pay premiums, deductibles and co-pays until you reach the hole. Once in the hole you pay 100%. Though you are still required to pay premiums, the insurer pays out nothing. It begins at $2,830 for 2010. As with everything connected to healthcare, there are substantial annual increases.

You can reach this amount fairly quickly because it includes all of the above items that you pay plus whatever the insurance company pays. However, getting out is just a bit different. The exit point is $4,550 but there is a catch. You arrive at that figure on your own. Payments made by the insurer are not included.

Now you must remember, this plan was not designed to benefit seniors. The government is forbidden to negotiate drug prices for Medicare. The VA is not so constrained and averages a discount of about 58%. This means that, having insurance, the drug dealers have more customers and they get the full retail price. That price is whatever they want it to be.

No, they didn’t forget the insurance companies. They are guaranteed against loss and receive subsidies from the taxpayer.

Now that you understand Part D, let’s see what the “secret deal” contains. It promises the drug dealers that Medicare will continue to be forbidden to negotiate. The drug dealers promise to help out with $80 billion, spread out over 10 years. Most of that will supposedly be going to reduce seniors’ costs in the do-nut hole.

To get that help, a 50% savings only while the senior is in the hole, you must buy brand names, no generics. Again, that is 50% of whatever the drug dealers want to charge.

Interestingly, al-PhRMA commissioned a study of what all of this will cost them. That study shows that, despite forking over $80 billion over a 10-year period, they will realize an increase of $137 billion in just the next 4 years. That, of course, is in addition to the windfall that Part D itself gave them.

They may have been too embarrassed to extend the study out any further, as a close reading of the plan shows that the do-nut hole will not be closed immediately. It will gradually be closed over a period of 13 years. Oh, lordy. They’re doing all of this for poor little me?

By the way, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) tells us that there will be substantial increases in the premiums seniors will pay for their do-nut hole discount.

And, now we have just one more bit of information that might be of interest. While the drug dealers are generously offering a discount of $8 billion a year, they are raising prices. This year they have already raised the overall prices the greatest amount since 1992. That would work out to more than $10 billion already this year.

If that doesn’t sound bad enough, let’s look a little more closely. Since those $6,000 per dose drugs, and others up on the high end, are not being raised much, if at all, the bulk of the increases are on the most commonly used drugs. That makes the effect on most people even more pronounced.

The various plans that were developed had price tags from something over $800 billion to $1.1 trillion. That is tax money. That doesn’t count increased premiums, deductibles and co-pays. The government will pay the costs for those who can’t pay. They will subsidize small companies providing healthcare. They will also continue to subsidize the insurance companies. This is in addition to the subsidies represented by the present tax exemptions for health insurance benefits.

I have already covered many of the general problems of the various plans. While the elimination of bans for preexisting conditions is in the plans, there are ways for the insurance companies to circumvent that stricture.

Ms. Pelosi proclaimed the inclusion of the public option and spoke of the plan covering 35 million people. The impression was intentionally left that the public option would cover those 35 millions. Actually, that increase in coverage comes from requiring small businesses and some individuals to purchase coverage. The public option is estimated to be available to up to 6.5 million.

The public option will, therefore, not play the claimed role of competing with private plans so as to keep their prices down. The only potential positive that might come from the public option would be as a foot in the door. It might, only might, be a way of expanding its coverage at some point in the indeterminate future. Don’t hold your breath.

By mandating that more people buy insurance and not holding the companies’ price increases down, the industry will reap tremendously increased revenue and profits. Those will be born by the average Joe, by increases in premiums, deductibles and co-pays, as well as subsidies from the government, i.e., taxpayers.

Obama and the Congress took single-payer off of the table before the “negotiations” began. They gave the various parts of the medical industry places at the table while ignoring the public and the majority of physicians. Then they cowered and kow-towed before al-PhRMA, AHIP, the AHA and the AMA, which represents less than 20% of physicians and stands against the wishes of the majority of them.

I have difficulty comprehending how that can be described as change or leadership or reform. I am convinced that the better way is for the President to take charge, to declare the entire process and resulting mess a failure and to demand a new start based on Medicare-For-All. That would not just require leadership; it would actually be leadership.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

In her gentle and succinct manner, Cheryl took me to task for my last post. To quote, “Who are you and what have you done with Crawford.”

I did respond in the comment area but felt the need to explain more fully. Her objection didn’t specify one aspect, so I intend to address each of the matters in its own, separate post.

There were four points: Afghanistan, healthcare reform, the economy and a strategy to get from the present sorry state to solving these problems. First, let’s explain the problem of Afghanistan.

Just what outcome do we want in Afghanistan? No. Be realistic. There is a better chance of Michelle Bachmann making a rational statement than of establishing a functioning, stable, Western-style democracy in that relic of the 14^th Century.

However much we are disgusted by the inhumane tenets and actions of the Taliban, they didn’t attack the Twin Towers. True, they cheered those who did it but they never attacked anyone outside of their own territory, at least until we drove them into Pakistan. We may want to eliminate such barbarians but that is neither our prerogative nor our responsibility.

The justification for our attacking Afghanistan was to strike back at al-Qaeda and deny them a base of operations. They now have bases in Pakistan, Somalia, Iraq and a few other places where they don’t have to compete with Club Med. We need to change the definition of success.

I subscribe to the tenets of the Powell Doctrine as I understand it. We should commit our troops only when our vital interests are at stake. We should have clearly defined and limited objectives. We should employ overwhelming force. We should have an exit strategy. None of those criteria were met when we militarily engaged in Afghanistan.

According to the Army’s own book, the metrics for fighting an asymmetrical war in that country require a force of at least 500,000. That would call for a major, politically and economically unattainable increase in the size of our army.

So, with 68,000 troops in country, how did our military leadership come up with the stated need for 40,000 additional troops? First, they wrote off about half the country. It would not be defended. Also, certain necessary, according to the book, operations would be eliminated. That helped get the required number down to 200,000. That still leaves a slight, unaccounted discrepancy.

That means we don’t have and never will have the force required to permit the government of Afghanistan to establish viability. And just what is needed from that government?

They need a stable government. They need the support of the people. They need stable conditions; reasonable safety for their citizens, infrastructure and economy. They need to substantially eliminate corruption. They need well-trained and reliable military and police forces. That’s what is needed. What do they have?

The brother of the President is a, if not the, major drug trafficker in the country. The “government” is an unruly conglomeration of tribal warlords. The President should more accurately be called the Mayor of Kabul. He retained that lofty position by a universally acknowledged corruption of the electoral process. There is no reliable or well-trained military or police presence. Whatever support the government has depends on continuing the rental payments. None of that bodes well for a viable national government.

In the previous post I gave the possible length of time our services would be needed as 400 or, possibly, 700 years. That obviously was said with less than full seriousness. When juxtaposing the present state of affairs against the stated requirements demanded by the Army’s own policies, it appears that the actual time would be somewhat in excess of infinity.

Now, taking all of that into consideration, how many troops should we commit and for how long? If there is no expectation of success, the killing of more of our young people is unconscionable.

Employment of military force is supposed to be the last, unavoidable option; not the first. Military leaders are imbued with the desire to win. That is what we expect and desire. Once we are involved in a conflict, military leaders generally are the last ones wanting to stop short of victory. If victory is definitely not in the cards, our need for their advice is limited to how to accomplish an orderly disengagement. They are not the ones to determine national policy.

National policy is the purview of our political leadership. We have many important, indeed vital, interests as a nation. Afghanistan is not one of them. It detracts from more important issues. It diverts resources from those other interests.

Will a decision to do what needs to be done represent a political liability? Yes, but it is unavoidable, except at great and unnecessary costs to our military, both institutionally and individually to many young fathers, mothers, sons, daughters and other kith and kin.

As a personal aside on a lighter note, the graphic of a spanking brought to mind my days at a military prep school. The football coach also had to teach a few classes. He was known as Man Mountain. He had been a star lineman at the local college, back when you played both offense and defense. He sat on the bench of the New York Giants for two years. He was far ahead of his time in size.

One time he caught two brothers and their cousin cheating. He made each stand to one side of his cleared desk resting on their elbows. Each malefactor received one blow from his paddle. He used only wrist action. The result in each case was a cadet sprawled on the floor on the other side of his desk. Oh, those wonderful memories of childhood.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

It appears the leader is being led.

Obama has kicked out Paul Volcker, the closest thing to a sane voice on his team of economic do-dos.

He is reportedly sending 40,000 more of our young to be wasted in Afghanistan. He long ago abandoned any pretense of leadership or backbone in the farcical pursuit of healthcare reform. And he expects sane people to support his every capitulation to the financial, health and military oligarchs?

Obama needs to look back at Jimmy Carter for a lesson in leadership. No, I don’t mean emulate Carter. I mean Carter presents an object lesson. As Obama might say, “This is a learning moment.”

Carter was trained as an engineer. He had the mindset of an engineer, not a politician. Carter’s approach was to try a method to solve a problem. If it didn’t work, try something else. Do you remember the outcome of his way? He was labeled a “waffler.”

Now, look at Nixon, Reagan and W. Even though they promoted policies that frequently went against the wishes of the country, as expressed in the polls, they got their way. How? Why?

After Nixon the people thought they wanted someone who was not a strong leader. They got Gerald Ford. That next election their choice was between two candidates that were seen as nice guys but not strong leaders. After Carter’s term they gravitated to someone seen as a strong leader.

It’s a matter of follow the leader. We have discovered that, although Obama is accomplished at inspiring a crowd, he has yet to prove he can lead it.

He has given a free hand to the financial cabal led by Goldman Sachs. I think his instincts in this area are at least partially correct. They just are not fully conceived. Whatever, he fails to lead. He relies on those who caused the global meltdown to provide the remedy. It seems obvious to everyone else that they brought us to this point because of the idiotic ideology they have held since birth. Is there reason to believe they have gone through a massive, intense re-education in the past few months?

Obama is sending another 40,000 units of cannon fodder to Afghanistan. Why? Because a “military expert” says we need them to give the most corrupt government on Earth a chance to succeed. Really? How long will that take? 400 years? 700 years? Once again, Obama is not taking the reins. He is following, not leading.

His inability or failure to lead is most obvious in the realm of healthcare reform. First, he learned the wrong lessons from the Clinton fiasco. He learned that the Clintons had put together a plan and presented it to the Congress. So, he tells the Congress to develop a plan. Has anyone ever accused the Congress of leadership? Have they ever been accused of being able to construct a cogent, workable, real-world plan when left to their own resources?

The lesson to be learned was that the people want something understandable to support. That means it must be simple. Two thousand pages rarely suggests simplicity. You lead by raising your fist and saying, “Follow me.” You don’t lead by using both hands to hoist up a 2,000-page joke and saying, “Vote for this, whatever it is.”

What would work? Try HR 676, Medicare-For-All. That is simple. Medicare took less than 11 months to implement. That was starting from scratch. We now have the structure in place. It just needs to be scaled up. Who could possibly support a plan so complex its supporters claim it requires four years to get up and running?

What to do? The progressives in the House and Senate need to actually carry out their threats. They need to vote down the bills now being considered. No pussyfooting. They need to just do it.

What would the results be? Well, Obama and the Democrats would have egg on their face. They would be seen as being incompetent to run the government. The Republicans would gain some seats in both houses in 2010 but Obama would still be President and the Democrats would still have majorities in both houses. True, they would be slimmer majorities but the Republicans got their agendas through with smaller majorities. It’s just that they exhibited a modicum of leadership.

Obama and the Democrats in Congress have already acquired the reputation of being incompetent to run the government, so that would not be all that different.

If the progressives scuttled those bills, Obama would have to reassess his performance. If he took the reins and showed real leadership, the public would respond. He would still have time to recover and win big in 2012. He might even be fortunate enough to turn his administration around by the mid-term elections. That might be too much to expect but it is possible and could at least minimize the loss of seats in that election cycle.

Obama has the choice. He can learn the right lessons and be mentioned in the same sentences as FDR and LBJ, or he can be the next Carter, a nice guy but one who can’t accomplish the turnaround this nation so sorely needs.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites