Privilege or Right?

If there's one thing that everyone can agree on it's that healthcare is expensive. Unfortunately that's about all we can agree on. As I listened to the 2009 - 2010 health reform 'debate' and the many ripples that it spawned I kept coming back to the same question: Is healthcare a right or a privilege? This seems to be the real heart of the matter, at least for those not associated with an insurance or pharmaceutical company. That's really what we're debating isn't it?

On the liberal/progressive side are those who see this as a basic rights issue. They believe that access to medical care should be something all Americans can count on, no matter their financial status. On the conservative end of the spectrum it seems to be viewed as more of a luxury and that access should be something you must work for and earn. Now conservatives won't put it that way exactly, but that's really the unspoken truth behind all the careful prose. They want to sound like they care, but in the end they always seem to rely on going to the Emergency Room as the fallback position. As if that's some sort of cost cutting measure, which it most certainly is not. That just pushes the cost around, out of sight, till it's paid for by all of us in one shape or form.

I'm sure it's obvious where I stand in this debate. For me it comes down to a simple question of whether a person's lifespan and basic health should rest solely on the size of their paycheck. Is a subcontracting carpenter less worthy of a long, healthy life simply because his job doesn't afford him health insurance and he may or may not be able to afford a policy on his own? Is a network administrator's life more important because his job usually provides health insurance? And even if you remove the employer subsidized insurance from the equation, a net admin makes more than most carpenters, so he would be much more likely to be able to afford insurance on his own. Put it this way, the CEO of Goldman Sachs will never want for medical care, no matter what ailment he may suffer from. However a single mom working multiple part time jobs to make ends meet will have difficulty paying for treatment of a simple broken bone, much less something like cancer. So is the CEO more deserving of life than the single mom because he has a high paying job with top of the line health insurance?

We in America like to think we have the best medical care the world has to offer. And, in part, that may be true, based on how many of the world's great and powerful come here for treatment. But it's important to remember that medical care and health care are two completely different things. Medical care is the actual skill of the medical staff, the technology they wield and their ability to apply both to cure a condition or manage it for the best quality of life. Medical care is not concerned with cost, only results. Health care on the other hand is all about cost. Health care is exclusively focused on how much medical care you are allowed by your insurance and/or your personal finances. So America may indeed have stellar medical care, but that doesn't mean all Americans are in a position to actually benefit from it.

And that's where the rubber meets the road on this issue, isn't it? Stop blathering about 'death panels' and socialism. Strip away the histrionics, the hyperbole and the euphemisms and admit what this is really all about! Is a person's life only as valuable as his paycheck?

Who Can You Trust?

Only the most naive would actually believe everything a politician said into a microphone or wrote on paper. It's pretty much axiomatic that even conservatives are liberal when it comes to the truth. But even knowing that, we still tend to assume that, at the core, there is some truth hiding there. We expect hyperbole, but most people, deep down, assume that a given statement is based on fact. We really have to believe that, don't we? Because once you lose even that little fragment of trust, what does that leave you with?

In what has become a huge media and social networking phenomenon, United States Senator Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) stepped beyond hyperbole in a statement from the floor of the US Senate. During the last days of the budget battle, a little over a week ago, the whole budget agreement seemed to come down to the funding of Planned Parenthood. According to one source, federal money accounts for about a third of Planned Parenthood's total funding. It's an odd sticking point for the entire federal budget, since this item makes up a mere sliver of the, already tiny, slice that is discretionary spending. It would be like a married couple, budgeting for the year, in a knock-down drag-out over the purchase of single caramel latte! This is far more about social agendas than budgetary restraint. Not to mention that we already have a regularly invoked provision, the Hyde Amendment, that has restricted Federal funding for abortion services since 1976! It's so inconvenient when these 'facts' disrupt a perfectly good narrative though, isn't it?

Jon Kyl's place in this debate was immortalized when he claimed that abortions made up "well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does." It's, of course, normal for a conservative to wave the red flag of abortion to rile the base, but the percentage he stated raised everyone's eyebrows. Jon Stewart, of The Daily Show, put it this way. "I'd love to see that statistic checked by, uh... Anyone!" Apparently many felt this way and when CNN, MSNBC and others contacted Kyl's office to ask where the statistic had come from, the Senator's spokesman informed them that, Kyl's "remark was not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, an organization that receives millions in taxpayer dollars, does subsidize abortions." Further investigation turned up the real statistic, which was about 3%. As Stephen Colbert put it very well, Kyl "just rounded up to the nearest 90."

Humor aside, and there was a lot of that in the days following the Senator's statement, what does this say about even the most basic filament of trust in our elected government? If he had announced that "much of what Planned Parenthood does is abortion" he would have been guilty of hyperbole. Pretty wild hyperbole, but still just exaggeration. But he didn't say that. He used a percentage that was calculated to sound like a fact. I believe that was exactly what it was- a calculated decision to say something that would make those for whom abortion is a trigger issue, gasp in horror. He lied, clearly and with every intention of misleading.

Am I naive to think that blatant lies by politicians should be shocking? Or have we just become so jaded that we are more shocked by truth? This is actually a very important issue. We don't have to believe every word of every statement, but where does it leave us, as a country, when we just assume we are being lied to all the time? Shouldn't we be outraged when it gets to this point? Even the constituency Kyl was pandering to should feel betrayed because he was obviously just manipulating them like pawns on a chess board. Or is manipulation OK as long as it seems, as far we know, to coincide with our individual beliefs?

Personally, I don't want to be lied to by politicians, whether I agree with their aims or not. Truth is the only way a democracy can function. Once lying becomes the norm, that's when the government becomes little more than an authoritarian state where the 'unwashed masses' just do what they are told. When I write something and I'm going to cite an absolute of some kind, such as a cost or percentage, I look it up. I find what seems to be a trustworthy source for the information I plan to quote. I could just make up numbers that fit my narrative, but I can't. It's not because I never lie, ever. It's because I have a certain sense of personal integrity that will not allow me to just make something up. That's what I expect from elected officials, naive though that may sound to some. This isn't pie in the sky idealism! I don't expect them to be paragons of honor and virtue, but at some point, where it really matters, I expect a basic level of personal integrity. You can lie about some personal foible and I may be disappointed, but when the lies affect thousands or millions of people who have put their trust in you, then I have no sympathy to give. It's way over used, but it's also a truism. With great power comes great responsibility. We must demand more from our government. If not, every lie uttered without repercussion adds another crack to the foundation of our democracy. To those who say I'm just gullible or naive to feel this way and that this is not how the world works, I have to ask, how long can a democracy last when the government realizes that it no longer has to tell us the truth at all?

Fracking Stupid

There is a procedure being used in many areas around the US, and the world, called Hydraulic Fracturing. Also referred to as 'fracing' or 'fracking' for short. Put simply, this procedure uses high pressure to pump a liquid, often made up of water and various chemicals, to fracture the underground rock. This creates a high permeability conduit to allow otherwise difficult to access deposits of natural gas or oil to be extracted. It's being used heavily in many parts of the northeast region of the US to access natural gas deposits that would otherwise be difficult to extract.

Now think about this, a high pressure stream of water and various chemicals are injected deep underground to break up the rock strata. Is there anything about this that seems problematic? I know that when I first heard this described my initial thought was, "what about the ground water?" After all, we get much of our drinking water from underground aquifers. If we are pumping chemicals, some of which are known to be hazardous, into the ground and fracturing the surrounding rock, it's inevitable that this will contaminate ground water. There's no way to prevent it. I've seen film of well water emerging from a normal sink faucet that can be ignited by a simple cigarette lighter. Now you might think, that there are federal laws that protect our drinking water. Yes there are. However you might be surprised to know that the G.W.Bush administration and Congress passed legislation in 2005 exempting oil and gas companies from those pesky regulations.

Why are we and others around the world doing something that basic common sense says is blindingly stupid? Borderline suicidal, even? Because energy companies want to make more money. It doesn't matter if it's effective in extracting more natural gas and oil. It doesn't matter if this contributes any tiny bit to our energy independence. If the process is polluting our water supply, and there seems to be evidence beyond just having a functioning brain to indicate that it does, than who the frack cares if it's profitable or provides any energy independence?! It's a simple case of risk/benefit analysis. The risk to lives far outweighs any benefit that may be produced. And if an energy company's profits weren't involved or a politician's donations weren't involved we wouldn't even be having the discussion. You want a picture postcard of what's wrong with our corporate influenced system, then this is it!

Priorities

We've all been in the position where we had multiple problems but limited time or resources to address them. So what do you do? You look at your problems and figure out which is the most pressing. The one that absolutely can't be put off. The problem that threatens to overwhelm you if not dealt with as soon as possible. You may have several that at first glance seem equally important but, in almost every case, when you look closely and weigh the facts you will see that one is more of an emergency than the other. It may not be by a lot, but there is a difference. Once this is sorted out, you focus as much as you can on this one problem and resolve it, or at least make enough progress that you can set it aside in favor of a more pressing issue. Put simply, you prioritize.

This is what we all do everyday. We prioritize errands, bills, obligations and all the other things in life we have to address both good and bad. But as often seems to be the case, our elected leaders appear to have forgotten this, whether by intention or incompetence. I think most Americans would agree that the two most pressing problems, on a national level, are the economy, which includes unemployment, and the national debt. Since being swept into office last November on a wave of impatience and discontent, the Republicans have, between inexplicable bouts of anti-abortion and anti-union zeal, screamed to the rafters that we must cut spending. Cut, cut, cut. Now, now, now! They say the government is spending too much and while true this is hardly different from the previous eight years, when they were in charge.  I agree that the debt is a huge problem. One of my early posts from 2004 was about the need to address the problem. Of course then the problem was only dire. It hadn't yet reached the level of obscenity we now face. So I'm fully in agreement that the debt must be faced and a plan set in place to reduce it.

However, one other thing has changed since 2004, when I first waved the red flag on our debt. You may even have noticed it when it occurred. It was when the economy dropped through the floor like a tank on balsa wood. Ring any bells? So here we sit, with unemployment hovering around 9% nationally and far worse in some areas. We've had some marginal growth, but it's been stuttering and uncertain. Foreclosures and bankruptcies are at eye watering levels. In fact, the only people doing well are those who either had lots of money to cushion the fall or the robber barons who parked the tank there in the first place! To top it all off, Republicans, with misguided and grudging Democratic support, ladled another $700 billion to the debt over the next few years so the richest people in the nation wouldn't see a slight tax hike.

This complicates any plan to balance the budget and put even a smudge on the national debt. It's the same old story, when the economy is booming and we could actually afford to reduce the budget and make inroads against the debt without major cuts, everyone wants to spend, spend, spend. As soon as the economy sags, everyone is suddenly calling for the end to NPR funding and home heating oil subsidies for the poor. Aside from the questionable morals of taking aid away from the poor after ensuring the wealthy don't see a tax increase, there is the fact that cuts like these have no real effect on the budget. Most of the cuts I see proposed are all focused on balancing the budget from the tiniest slice of the whole pie, discretionary spending. They ignore the largest percentage made up of Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid & Defense. Why? Because those would require real effort and debate. So much easier to just go for the easy pickings. The stuff you can get the base riled up about, but that won't really make a difference.

Want to deal with the budget? Focus on the economy! The most important thing is to get the economy growing and get millions back to work. That will scale back the bankruptcies, the foreclosures and spending on unemployment benefits. It will also generate revenue that can be used to balance the budget, along with some modest cuts. Remember, the underlying reason for the huge budget problems at the State and Federal levels stem from the recession. Yes, government has spent a lot in the last 3 years, but the reason it did, whether you agreed with the choices or not, was in direct response to economic strife. Propping up huge corporations so they wouldn't collapse and take large chunks of their fiscal neighbors with them. Trying to pump money into the system to keep the economy from flat lining. That's where the majority of our recent deficits came from. So focus on the economy. Get that running on all cylinders again and a significant percentage of the problem will correct itself.  No, it won't solve it, but it will have a far greater and long lasting effect than any discretionary spending cuts. And if you're going to look at cuts, consider EVERYTHING, not just your pet, partisan punching bag. We will never balance the entire budget if we are only willing to make cuts to 15% of it!

The Government You Deserve

I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking, "I told you so". As last year's mid-terms approached and the crop of far Right candidates were looking more and more likely to win big, I saw it coming. Everyone should have, but Americans were, as usual, impatient and fickle. Two years of the Obama administration and Democrats in control (Senate excluded, of course) hadn't magically levitated us out of a deep recession yet, so obviously it was time to reverse the gears again. Well America did switch horses in the middle of the race and what a fine mess it's creating.

Republicans retook control of the House and promised that Jobs were the top priority. So what did they do with their first bills? A symbolic 'repeal' of Health Reform, which had no chance of passing the Senate or being signed by the President. Followed by . . . wait for it, two bills focused on abortion. And not just the usual conservative anti-abortion style legislation. No, they decided that the best way to restrict abortions was to try and redefine what 'rape' actually meant! They actually tried to do it by making a distinction between 'rape' and 'forcible rape'! Let me quote from the New Oxford American Dictionary: Rape (noun)"forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with [them] without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them." I'm pretty sure that would be 'forcible rape'. I'm sure if one of these Republicans had a friend or family member who was raped, they would consider that 'forcible'. Welcome to the Republican controlled House, where we redefine the English language to fit our social policies!

Remember those promises newly minted Speaker Boehner and his colleagues made to 'fix' the House when they took over? Such as citing Constitutional precedent in all bills? Promise broken from day one. Promise to cut $100 Billion from the budget in their first year? Reality finally sets in and that number is dropping fast. Promise Broken. A promise to institute an 'Open Rules' process on all legislation so there would be debate and a chance to propose amendments? Promise broken day one. It took them over a month before they finally got around to keeping this promise, but I wouldn't hold my breath on it being repeated after that.

What about State governments? A wave of Republican Governors were voted into office. Well, in Wisconsin we have Governor Scott Walker who has decided to address a budget shortfall by slashing public worker pay and benefits. But that's just the semi-normal part of the legislation. Another part of the proposed bill would strip many unions of their collective bargaining rights. A move that has zero budgetary effect, but certainly a large political effect. Rachel Maddow put it well on a recent show where she noted that Wisconsin is not in tough budgetary straits. Or they weren't until Governor Walker gave away about $140 Million in business tax incentives immediately after taking office. A number that is eerily close, oddly enough, to the current state shortfall. So while Governor Walker is attempting to make this a budgetary crises, what this really is about is politics. Union busting, not to save money, but as a direct attack on organizations who generally support Democratic candidates. Think this is just my misinterpretation? Then why did Gov. Walker exempt local police, firefighters and state troopers from his labor union attacks? Oddly enough, these are the three groups who supported his election campaign. I'm sure that's just a coincidence though, right?

So welcome, America, to your newly elected conservative government! I just hope you weren't actually counting on them to help with the jobs crisis or the economy. After all, why work to address the 9% unemployment rate and quickly widening wage gap when you have the chance to redefine rape and strip unions of their bargaining rights? Welcome America, not to the government you wanted, but rather to the government you deserve!

Update: If you would like a good followup to the Wisconsin story, I suggest this.

The Joy of Dictators

The current demonstrations in Egypt, hot on the heels of the ones that brought down Tunisia's government, put a glaring spotlight on America's foreign relations split personality. The US has always talked boldly about the need for more democracy around the world. It's a long running theme in our public persona. But this democratic fervor is at odds with our long history of supporting authoritarian regimes.

Don't get me wrong, compared with some of America's other past and present 'allies', Egypt is tame. After all, they are the only Arab nation to have formally accepted Israel's right to exist, signed a peace treaty with them and have maintained diplomatic ties with the Jewish state. Compared to many other regional powers, Egypt is fairly moderate. But the fact remains that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has held power for nearly 30 years behind the fiction of elections that always awarded him victory by absurd margins. You'd think these authoritarian regimes would learn after a while. If they really want to keep the illusion that they are being re-elected repeatedly, at least keep the numbers realistic. Any margin over about 60% is pretty much a guarantee of corruption yet Mubarak 'won' consistently with margins of 80% or more. Might as well drop the pretense and exchange the title 'President' for 'Dictator'. He could at least claim the high ground on honesty.

The root of the problem is that as much as America likes Democracies in theory, we find them rather problematic to deal with in practice. A great example of this was in the build up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The US requested that Turkey let us move a large contingent of troops through their country to enable an advance into Iraq from the north. This tidy plan came apart, however, when Turkey's democratic government voted to deny the request forcing a delay as these troops were diverted to the Gulf. You see, the problem with a democracy is that it's not always predictable. Just look at the US Congress if you doubt that. But a dictatorship! Now that's a government deals are made of! There's nothing more efficient in foreign policy than to be able to sit down in a single office that can encompass the entire ruling government. Only in an authoritarian regime can the word of a few, or even just one, official guarantee the nation's lock-step agreement.

This is why the initial US response to the popular demonstrations in Egypt was so neutral. Ideologically we are strongly attracted to the Egyptian's calls for reform and a representative government. On the other hand we would lose a reasonably friendly partner with which we have a long history. Not to mention that any new government would be a rather chancy roll of the dice. What kind of government would replace Mubarak? Would they be more fundamentalist? Would they be friendly to America or not? We still have vivid memories from the late 70's when the US backed Shah of Iran was overthrown in a popular revolution and it didn't turn out too well for us as a nation or for the Americans held hostage for 444 days.

But this is what happens when we take the easy route and throw our support behind strong-arm regimes while turning a blind eye to their iron handed rule. Another outcome of this convenient arrangement is when a one time ally becomes an enemy. Anyone remember that in the early 80's we were buddies with a gentleman by the name of Saddam Hussein? Another one that didn't turn out so well. Personally I think it's time to stop taking the easy road when it comes to international relations because, just as in most things, easy often carries a rather steep price tag when all is said and done.

The Farce Continues

Am I the only one who wonders why the Republicans in the House, who were so gung-ho to rein in spending, are continuing to waste their time and our money in pursuit of the meaningless and the trivial? Only a few days ago the House passed a piece of legislation called "Repealing of the Job Killing Health Care Law". Subtle, eh? Also in the House, Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), newly minted Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, is making threats to start endless investigations into the Obama Administration. Not for any specific abuses, as far as I can tell, but more in the realm of a touchdown dance now that the GOP has retaken control of the House of Representatives.  Both are pointless, petty and completely out of touch with the real problems facing the country and more of a demonstration of political gamesmanship than anything else.

As far as health reform repeal is concerned, let's all remember that it is functionally impossible for Republicans to repeal health reform at this time. Maybe if they win the Presidency or the Senate in 2012 it would be feasible, but not now. They can pass any idiotic notion they want in the House and no doubt this item is only the first, but it will then go to the other side of the Capital and vanish from sight. The Senate will never debate it, much less pass it. And even if it were passed, the President will veto it and an override would require the support of two-thirds of both houses, which will not happen. Not to mention the question of why you would want to in the first place. It's not perfect and parts of it will be debated and challenged, but it includes a lot of good things. It's also true that the Congressional Budget Office and other non-aligned groups have consistently said that this law will save money over the next decade. I realize the GOP had to go through the formalities for those supporters too ignorant of how the government functions to realize what an empty promise repeal actually was, but the gesture has been made, now let's move on!

Then we have the oft voiced threat to hold a long series of vague and pointless House investigations of the Obama Administration. Really? So we went through 8 years of the Bush Administration redefining torture in such a way to make it legal, had the rendition of suspects to secret locations outside the reach of our laws and the maintenance of an offshore gulag. Then Obama tries to do exactly what he was elected to do and this is a problem. It is as transparent a political game as you are likely to see. And in DC that's saying something. But it's only the opening salvo of the newly GOP controlled House as they pursue their most important agenda item for the next couple years; prevent Obama from winning reelection in 2012. I do not exaggerate. Senate Minority Leader McConnell actually told a conservative gathering last year that preventing Obama from winning a second term was their top priority. He actually said that, even as we deal with rampant unemployment, economic desolation and a rising national debt. It is comforting to know that our elected officials continue to be focused on the future. Not America's, unfortunately, but certainly that of the GOP. To say this behavior angers me would be like saying that Hurricane Katrina got a few people wet.

It's way past time for the conservatives to stop acting like Obama is some far left radical. I use the term 'act' literally, as most of these people know full well that this President is the most centrist, pragmatic Chief Executive we've seen in over 30 years. He has consistently taken conservative ideas and incorporated them into his policy proposals. Consistently he's been open to GOP suggestions. Consistently he has irritated the more progressive wing of his party for not taking up the charge on many liberal causes, such as gay marriage. Yet he has consistently been portrayed among conservative politicians and talking heads as an out of control, frothing liberal. Why? Because a centrist, popular Democrat is a GOP nightmare. They didn't know what to do with him when he was elected. The last thing they wanted was to help him and thereby hurt their chances of beating him in 2012, so they did the only thing they could . . . they made things up. They began a narrative that was a lie. It was obvious to most of us who actually looked at the policies and ignored the rhetoric, but many have bought into it and that is a tragedy. It's depressing to imagine all that could have been done, if only America were more important than politics. It's also depressing that so many Americans actually believe the drivel being spouted to by those who have no reason whatsoever to cooperate with this Administration. That's how they won back the House. Some Americans are so shortsighted and impatient that they couldn't even give Obama his full term before throwing up their hands in frustration. Guess it's true, in a Democracy you do get the government you deserve.