"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." - Matthew 5:9
Throughout the history of our great country, the United States, there has not been an invite quite like the invite made by Speaker John Boehner. Earlier in March, our top leader in the House of Representatives invited the prime minster of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, to speak before a joint session of Congress.
A foreign leader asked to speak before Congress is not unusual, especially if it is an ally of the United States. Japan's prime minister will be giving a speech later this year. What was unusual, however, was the nature of the speech given, and the protocol by which the speech came about.
Mr. Netanyahu explicitly requested that our legislative branch forego support for the president. The arrogant orator asked the legislators to undermine an ongoing foreign policy strategy being implemented by the executive branch -- a branch which was given immense power in foreign affairs by the Constitution.
The historic disrespect for the office of the president was orchestrated by Republicans in Congress behind the back of the administration. No one from the White House, including Secretary of State John Kerry, who had met with the ambassador of Israel shortly before the invite was announced, was notified. They learned about the invitation after the fact. An unprecedented breach of protocol led to the controversial speech.
All of these events took place right before a close and heated election in Israel. The whole affair stunk of putrid politics.
Given the incomparable sleight, one would have expected it to be for a peaceful cause. To the contrary, the speech called for the nuclear negotiations with Iran to cease. Calling it, "a bad deal," although a deal had not been reached, Prime Minister Netanyahu made it clear that he favored war. Because without a diplomatic deal, or a framework to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, war is more likely than not to occur.
Iran is backed into a corner, and rightfully so. The economic sanctions put into place by President Obama and the other security council members of the UN have been effective. But, the purpose of the sanctions was to get Iran to the negotiating table. By refusing to negotiate, Iran hardliners will be empowered and Iran will have to forge ahead lest it appear weak.
A majority of Americans support the talks, including myself. War and military campaigns should be the last option. Those who favor all or nothing diplomacy put the world at risk; each and every hawkish rhetoric puts our troops into the potential line of fire. Our leaders need to take that seriously. Our military men and women should have an unambiguous reason for putting their own lives at risk.
Peace through understanding can be accomplished. Certainly, we should celebrate those who are willing to fight for peace even if it is unpopular. At the very least, they should be given a chance.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
2014: The Year That Dire Warnings Did Not Come to Pass
Crystal balls are supposed to allow a viewer to gain an insight into the future. One allegedly can shake it up and glean information -- enough to shape behavior. Or so they say. I certainly do not believe such nonsense.
Conservatives of late have eagerly made predictions. Like oracles with crystal balls, they have issued dire warnings and prophesied tribulations. As time passed, however, the sky did not fall. Shaking of the earth was absent. Our financial system remained intact.
2014 must have been a disappointing year for those who exhorted gloom. Let's take a look at my favorite predictions gone wrong:
(1) ObamaCare will result in more people uninsured. During the debate of the Affordable Care Act, and actually up until today, despite positive numbers, opponents of health care reform have claimed that the law will result in a death spiral of coverage. It was said that no one would use the exchanges. In conjunction with the cancellation of illegal policies, more people would be without health insurance and out of luck. Not so. Tens of millions now have coverage.The uninsured rate in the country has gone down dramatically.
(2) Health care premiums will skyrocket because of Obamacare. Similar to the claims above, critics foresaw that premiums would increase substantially. Premiums rose only 2.8% nationally, which is much lower than the percentage increases years prior to the Affordable Care Act.
(3) Obama's economic policies will destroy the stock market. Matt O'Brien, a conservative pundit, opined that the market would crash due to President Obama. Quite the opposite has occurred. Both major indices, the DOW and S & P 500, have set records. For a Marxist, he should have to explain his economic track record.
(4) The President's war on coal and energy will mean astronomical gas prices. Perhaps no one saw this coming, but gas prices are extremely low -- with some parts of the country being able to purchase gasoline for under $2.00. While the causes vary, like the fact that global supply is up and global demand is low, the President's all-of-the-above energy policy has been helpful.
(5) The Affordable Care Act will make millions lose their jobs. 2014 was the best year of hiring since 1999. Unemployment is at 5.8% after the greatest recession since the Great Depression. No data suggests that individuals are losing their jobs because of ObamaCare. To the contrary, with more mobility, workers are now finding more fulfilling jobs.
(6) Hyperinflation is inevitable because of the Fed and Obama's monetary decisions. Inflation remains low despite quantitative easing and zero interest rates. Fiscal hawks in the GOP have cried foul but the Fed has not destroyed the dollar. Compared to other major currencies, the dollar's value has increased. Inflation cannot shoot up if there is insufficient demand, even if there is an increase in the money supply. Someone needs to teach that to our conservative representatives.
(7) Putin will outsmart Obama since he is a great leader. On Fox News, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani praised Putin for his leadership. Other conservatives discussed his masculinity and chess-like intellect. After Russia annexed Crimea and upset the sovereignty of Ukraine, the country is in free fall. The decreasing ruble has caused a run on banks and consumer goods. With an unbalanced national economy, gas prices have contributed to Russia's recession. And, western sanctions have resulted in deep pain to the economy. It appears that Putin was not so bright after all.
The new year is upon us. I won't make any predictions except this one: there will be more nonsense in 2015. It's time for the soothsayers to bring out their crystal balls. Let's toast to the hope that you will have better luck this year (not).
Conservatives of late have eagerly made predictions. Like oracles with crystal balls, they have issued dire warnings and prophesied tribulations. As time passed, however, the sky did not fall. Shaking of the earth was absent. Our financial system remained intact.
2014 must have been a disappointing year for those who exhorted gloom. Let's take a look at my favorite predictions gone wrong:
(1) ObamaCare will result in more people uninsured. During the debate of the Affordable Care Act, and actually up until today, despite positive numbers, opponents of health care reform have claimed that the law will result in a death spiral of coverage. It was said that no one would use the exchanges. In conjunction with the cancellation of illegal policies, more people would be without health insurance and out of luck. Not so. Tens of millions now have coverage.The uninsured rate in the country has gone down dramatically.
(2) Health care premiums will skyrocket because of Obamacare. Similar to the claims above, critics foresaw that premiums would increase substantially. Premiums rose only 2.8% nationally, which is much lower than the percentage increases years prior to the Affordable Care Act.
(3) Obama's economic policies will destroy the stock market. Matt O'Brien, a conservative pundit, opined that the market would crash due to President Obama. Quite the opposite has occurred. Both major indices, the DOW and S & P 500, have set records. For a Marxist, he should have to explain his economic track record.
(4) The President's war on coal and energy will mean astronomical gas prices. Perhaps no one saw this coming, but gas prices are extremely low -- with some parts of the country being able to purchase gasoline for under $2.00. While the causes vary, like the fact that global supply is up and global demand is low, the President's all-of-the-above energy policy has been helpful.
(5) The Affordable Care Act will make millions lose their jobs. 2014 was the best year of hiring since 1999. Unemployment is at 5.8% after the greatest recession since the Great Depression. No data suggests that individuals are losing their jobs because of ObamaCare. To the contrary, with more mobility, workers are now finding more fulfilling jobs.
(6) Hyperinflation is inevitable because of the Fed and Obama's monetary decisions. Inflation remains low despite quantitative easing and zero interest rates. Fiscal hawks in the GOP have cried foul but the Fed has not destroyed the dollar. Compared to other major currencies, the dollar's value has increased. Inflation cannot shoot up if there is insufficient demand, even if there is an increase in the money supply. Someone needs to teach that to our conservative representatives.
(7) Putin will outsmart Obama since he is a great leader. On Fox News, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani praised Putin for his leadership. Other conservatives discussed his masculinity and chess-like intellect. After Russia annexed Crimea and upset the sovereignty of Ukraine, the country is in free fall. The decreasing ruble has caused a run on banks and consumer goods. With an unbalanced national economy, gas prices have contributed to Russia's recession. And, western sanctions have resulted in deep pain to the economy. It appears that Putin was not so bright after all.
The new year is upon us. I won't make any predictions except this one: there will be more nonsense in 2015. It's time for the soothsayers to bring out their crystal balls. Let's toast to the hope that you will have better luck this year (not).
Friday, October 31, 2014
Will (or Can) the Republicans Govern?
Tuesday, November 4 is the date of the midterm elections. Unless you have tuned out and are unaware (like the majority of Americans), this vote is primarily about which political party will control the upper chamber of Congress. There are battleground states with close races. Come Tuesday we will know whether Mitch McConnell or Harry Reid is the senate majority leader.
Pundits, operatives, and politicians themselves have voiced their opinions about the importance of this election. Americans are not buying it, or at least they are not enthused. With record numbers of dissatisfaction, voters seem apathetic. Most cite gridlock and polarization for the cause of the discontent. They ask: does it really matter who wins control of the Senate?
The election will go on, however, and polls point to a Republican victory. "It is a good environment for the Republicans." The President is too unpopular to help the Democrats, it has been said. The wizards of statistics have generally agreed with these sentiments. Both FiveThirtyEight and the Princeton Election Consortium have given the advantage to Republican candidates in the battleground states, which are overwhelming located in the South and Midwest.
So more likely than not, we will have a Congress controlled by the Republicans, both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
What will they do with a majority? I am curious as to whether Republicans will be able to change their message and tone so quickly. Let us not forget that for years now they have been the opposition party. Instead of having to push forward legislation (which could make it to the floor for a vote), the dissenters have been able to criticize, and object. It's been the case that Republicans have been more focused on pointing out President Obama's "failures" than offering policy changes.
Indeed, even this election reflects the "attitudes" of the political atmosphere, rather than any substantive legislative proposals. "President Obama has been weak on Ebola." Even though there have been only a handful of confirmed cases of Ebola. "President Obama has failed on the economy." Despite the fact that their has been 56 months of job creation, and corporate earnings have been astronomical. "President Obama is weak on national security." Though there has been no outright terrorist attacks on our homeland."ObamaCare needs to be replaced!" By what, who knows.
Optics are important, yet it should not be the main concern of voters. Can Republicans govern, and put aside the rhetoric? With their likely new found majority, will they pass bills for the President to sign?
The statisticians should do some numbers on that question. Republicans favor less regulation (specifics?), low taxation on top rates (didn't work so well in Kansas), and less government spending (deficit to GDP ratio is historically low). It's unlikely that these goals will be signed off by the President. Not only on political grounds, but on the fact that these policies do not have a great track record.
Socially, Republicans are also going to face public opposition. On marriage equality, a woman's right to choose, and other "moral" issues, they advocate a position in conflict with a majority of Americans.
The Republicans will likely win on Tuesday, but they may not be ready for the win. Accustomed to their method of disapproval, legislators will have to change course: offer ideas, pass laws, and govern. It will be interesting to see what they will do once in the driver's seat. For the rest of us, let's remember to put on our seat belts. It could be a bumpy ride.
Pundits, operatives, and politicians themselves have voiced their opinions about the importance of this election. Americans are not buying it, or at least they are not enthused. With record numbers of dissatisfaction, voters seem apathetic. Most cite gridlock and polarization for the cause of the discontent. They ask: does it really matter who wins control of the Senate?
The election will go on, however, and polls point to a Republican victory. "It is a good environment for the Republicans." The President is too unpopular to help the Democrats, it has been said. The wizards of statistics have generally agreed with these sentiments. Both FiveThirtyEight and the Princeton Election Consortium have given the advantage to Republican candidates in the battleground states, which are overwhelming located in the South and Midwest.
So more likely than not, we will have a Congress controlled by the Republicans, both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
What will they do with a majority? I am curious as to whether Republicans will be able to change their message and tone so quickly. Let us not forget that for years now they have been the opposition party. Instead of having to push forward legislation (which could make it to the floor for a vote), the dissenters have been able to criticize, and object. It's been the case that Republicans have been more focused on pointing out President Obama's "failures" than offering policy changes.
Indeed, even this election reflects the "attitudes" of the political atmosphere, rather than any substantive legislative proposals. "President Obama has been weak on Ebola." Even though there have been only a handful of confirmed cases of Ebola. "President Obama has failed on the economy." Despite the fact that their has been 56 months of job creation, and corporate earnings have been astronomical. "President Obama is weak on national security." Though there has been no outright terrorist attacks on our homeland."ObamaCare needs to be replaced!" By what, who knows.
Optics are important, yet it should not be the main concern of voters. Can Republicans govern, and put aside the rhetoric? With their likely new found majority, will they pass bills for the President to sign?
The statisticians should do some numbers on that question. Republicans favor less regulation (specifics?), low taxation on top rates (didn't work so well in Kansas), and less government spending (deficit to GDP ratio is historically low). It's unlikely that these goals will be signed off by the President. Not only on political grounds, but on the fact that these policies do not have a great track record.
Socially, Republicans are also going to face public opposition. On marriage equality, a woman's right to choose, and other "moral" issues, they advocate a position in conflict with a majority of Americans.
The Republicans will likely win on Tuesday, but they may not be ready for the win. Accustomed to their method of disapproval, legislators will have to change course: offer ideas, pass laws, and govern. It will be interesting to see what they will do once in the driver's seat. For the rest of us, let's remember to put on our seat belts. It could be a bumpy ride.
Monday, June 30, 2014
To Sue or Not to Sue, That is the (Politically Driven) Question
Hamlet is one of my favorite Shakespearean plays. It is a tragedy that ends in the demise of almost all the characters, but it addresses a range of deep themes and motifs. One such theme is inaction. Enter Speaker of The House, John Boehner.
Recently, Speaker Boehner announced that he was considering a lawsuit against President Obama. Yes, I'm serious (he has some time on his hands). In a press conference, Boehner bemoaned the executive actions of the President, but when he spoke, he failed to mention any particular violations with specificity. Despite this oversight, he was indignantly confident that Obama was failing to execute the laws of the land. Ergo a lawsuit is required; the king must be stopped in his tracks.
The media loved the drama of course -- being more akin to a reality show than an actual policy question.
But, in reality, it is quite sad that our conservative leaders have decided that this is the best course of action for our country. Instead of introducing any bipartisan (bills devoid of poison pills, i.e. amendments to repeal Obamacare, EPA requirements, and food stamps) legislation or allowing Senate-passed bills to come to the House floor, Boehner has elected for litigation.
There is a hint of bad faith here. The Republicans in Congress have refused to entertain any compromise whatsoever. It is a bad word -- and can hurt them in the primaries. Thus, it is in their interest to block, obfuscate, delay, filibuster, and complain. The added benefit is that it undermines the public's opinion about the federal government.
When you run on a platform that all government is bad, it is in your interest to clog any federal action. Not only does it stop the federal government from accomplishing anything, it harms the people's faith in public institutions. Private corporations and states get to fill the void -- just as they wanted and advocated for.
Moreover, the GOP's reasoning has been unsound on this issue. When Boehner said that he did not want to embrace comprehensive immigration reform, he cited the lack of faith that he had in the President to execute the law. Senate Schumer cleverly and quickly retorted that they could approve immigration reform now, but delay its implementation until after President Obama's second term. Boehner declined. He did not provide a justification.
Just like Hamlet, Boehner is plagued by his inability to act. He cannot control his conference. He is unable to pass anything at all -- although resolutions, symbolic gestures, are now popular. Further, Boehner cannot formulate a winning strategy for Republicans in Congress. In the end, he will end up hurting the party -- like when Hamlet stabbed himself with his own poisoned-laced blade.
You see, Americans are smart enough to figure out that intransigence is not beneficial for the country. To the contrary, if we do not compromise, we will fall behind the rest of the world. People, independents and moderates, will eventually see what the lawsuit is all about: faux outrage to get the die-hard conservatives to the polls.
There is truly something rotten in the United States. And I fear that lest we do something about it, it could end up bad for all of us. Certainly, that would be a tragedy.
Recently, Speaker Boehner announced that he was considering a lawsuit against President Obama. Yes, I'm serious (he has some time on his hands). In a press conference, Boehner bemoaned the executive actions of the President, but when he spoke, he failed to mention any particular violations with specificity. Despite this oversight, he was indignantly confident that Obama was failing to execute the laws of the land. Ergo a lawsuit is required; the king must be stopped in his tracks.
The media loved the drama of course -- being more akin to a reality show than an actual policy question.
But, in reality, it is quite sad that our conservative leaders have decided that this is the best course of action for our country. Instead of introducing any bipartisan (bills devoid of poison pills, i.e. amendments to repeal Obamacare, EPA requirements, and food stamps) legislation or allowing Senate-passed bills to come to the House floor, Boehner has elected for litigation.
There is a hint of bad faith here. The Republicans in Congress have refused to entertain any compromise whatsoever. It is a bad word -- and can hurt them in the primaries. Thus, it is in their interest to block, obfuscate, delay, filibuster, and complain. The added benefit is that it undermines the public's opinion about the federal government.
When you run on a platform that all government is bad, it is in your interest to clog any federal action. Not only does it stop the federal government from accomplishing anything, it harms the people's faith in public institutions. Private corporations and states get to fill the void -- just as they wanted and advocated for.
Moreover, the GOP's reasoning has been unsound on this issue. When Boehner said that he did not want to embrace comprehensive immigration reform, he cited the lack of faith that he had in the President to execute the law. Senate Schumer cleverly and quickly retorted that they could approve immigration reform now, but delay its implementation until after President Obama's second term. Boehner declined. He did not provide a justification.
Just like Hamlet, Boehner is plagued by his inability to act. He cannot control his conference. He is unable to pass anything at all -- although resolutions, symbolic gestures, are now popular. Further, Boehner cannot formulate a winning strategy for Republicans in Congress. In the end, he will end up hurting the party -- like when Hamlet stabbed himself with his own poisoned-laced blade.
You see, Americans are smart enough to figure out that intransigence is not beneficial for the country. To the contrary, if we do not compromise, we will fall behind the rest of the world. People, independents and moderates, will eventually see what the lawsuit is all about: faux outrage to get the die-hard conservatives to the polls.
There is truly something rotten in the United States. And I fear that lest we do something about it, it could end up bad for all of us. Certainly, that would be a tragedy.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Midterm Musings
President Obama sent me an email today. The short message had a personal touch -- Barack addressed me by my first name: Chris. I know that some of my readers must be jealous. I mean, it's not everyday that the most powerful man in the world takes the time to write to a regular citizen like me. Even if it's about raising money for the midterm elections...
Now that I reflect upon the email, it looks oddly familiar to the other 487289358 emails that I have received in the past thirty-five minutes; like the email Vice-President Joe sent me. Something seems fishy. I wonder if the two of them had shopped at Target recently.
All kidding aside, us political enthusiasts can expect dozens of similar emails in the next few months. As an individual who donated money in the past to Democratic campaigns, my personal information is ripe for solicitation. The midterm elections are right around the corner.
Most people must agree with President Obama about the midterms, however. They are not sexy. It doesn't even come close to the Presidential elections. That's the real sexy stuff -- remember when Mitt Romney opined about his sleeping wear. Indeed, most people do not even know if their candidate is on the ballot this year.
But for me and other liberals, there is something uniquely troublesome about the elections this November. Midterms are historically a bad time for Democrats. We tend to fall asleep. In other words, voter turnout during non-presidential election years are proven to be horrid. This year will be even more of a hurdle because of the unprecedented congressional redistricting, or "gerrymandering," by Republicans in 2010.
As stated before in a previous post, the Congressional maps heavily favor Republicans. In 2012, there were 1.4 million more votes for Democrats, but the Republicans maintained a 33-seat majority in the House of Representatives. That was the second time since the 1940's that a party receiving more of the votes ended up losing the majority.
That's not all. Democrats can expect more obstacles to overcome. I know: it is not fair. The 2010 wave of Republicans, and Tea Party candidates, also stormed the state legislatures. Conservative states obtained Republican super-majorities, meaning that those states were relatively free to pass whatever "freedom-loving" bills that it wanted. On the agenda: strict voter ID laws.
Voter ID laws -- passed under the guise of fraud-prevention -- mandate that voters possess a valid identification card while casting a vote. Some states require a birth certificate or passport. The GOP has also taken steps to limit early voting, online voting, weekend voting, and same-day registration. Evidence shows that these type of laws have a negative disparate impact on low-income and minority populations -- traditional Democratic voters. The Republicans have been busy in the state legislatures -- as opposed to the House of Representatives.
So, while you may hear or see the occasional pundit pontificating about the political ramifications of ObamaCare on the midterms, it's actually more about structural advantages set into motion in 2010. Not that ObamaCare is necessarily politically bad for the Democrats. There is evidence to suggest that over 7 million will sign up by the deadline today. But it is undeniable that millions of dollars in TV advertising are being poured into the false ObamaCare narratives. Fact-checkers will be busy for some time.
We have a choice. The red or blue pill. Democrats can accept the traditional midterm blues or we can do everything in our power to help with the turnout. If we simply concede to the slick strategies implemented by the GOP, I question our resolve. The simple "reality" is that we may have to do more than read emails. Let's pick up the phones too -- we may find ourselves in a "better world."
Now that I reflect upon the email, it looks oddly familiar to the other 487289358 emails that I have received in the past thirty-five minutes; like the email Vice-President Joe sent me. Something seems fishy. I wonder if the two of them had shopped at Target recently.
All kidding aside, us political enthusiasts can expect dozens of similar emails in the next few months. As an individual who donated money in the past to Democratic campaigns, my personal information is ripe for solicitation. The midterm elections are right around the corner.
Most people must agree with President Obama about the midterms, however. They are not sexy. It doesn't even come close to the Presidential elections. That's the real sexy stuff -- remember when Mitt Romney opined about his sleeping wear. Indeed, most people do not even know if their candidate is on the ballot this year.
But for me and other liberals, there is something uniquely troublesome about the elections this November. Midterms are historically a bad time for Democrats. We tend to fall asleep. In other words, voter turnout during non-presidential election years are proven to be horrid. This year will be even more of a hurdle because of the unprecedented congressional redistricting, or "gerrymandering," by Republicans in 2010.
As stated before in a previous post, the Congressional maps heavily favor Republicans. In 2012, there were 1.4 million more votes for Democrats, but the Republicans maintained a 33-seat majority in the House of Representatives. That was the second time since the 1940's that a party receiving more of the votes ended up losing the majority.
That's not all. Democrats can expect more obstacles to overcome. I know: it is not fair. The 2010 wave of Republicans, and Tea Party candidates, also stormed the state legislatures. Conservative states obtained Republican super-majorities, meaning that those states were relatively free to pass whatever "freedom-loving" bills that it wanted. On the agenda: strict voter ID laws.
Voter ID laws -- passed under the guise of fraud-prevention -- mandate that voters possess a valid identification card while casting a vote. Some states require a birth certificate or passport. The GOP has also taken steps to limit early voting, online voting, weekend voting, and same-day registration. Evidence shows that these type of laws have a negative disparate impact on low-income and minority populations -- traditional Democratic voters. The Republicans have been busy in the state legislatures -- as opposed to the House of Representatives.
So, while you may hear or see the occasional pundit pontificating about the political ramifications of ObamaCare on the midterms, it's actually more about structural advantages set into motion in 2010. Not that ObamaCare is necessarily politically bad for the Democrats. There is evidence to suggest that over 7 million will sign up by the deadline today. But it is undeniable that millions of dollars in TV advertising are being poured into the false ObamaCare narratives. Fact-checkers will be busy for some time.
We have a choice. The red or blue pill. Democrats can accept the traditional midterm blues or we can do everything in our power to help with the turnout. If we simply concede to the slick strategies implemented by the GOP, I question our resolve. The simple "reality" is that we may have to do more than read emails. Let's pick up the phones too -- we may find ourselves in a "better world."
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Static Union
"Big thinking has more often gotten us into trouble then led us to success..." - Republican Congressman Tom Cole.
Last night President Obama gave his State of the Union Address in front of his political adversary -- the "do even less" Congress. During the address, Mr. Obama focused on the personal stories of average Americans. He highlighted the anecdotes to paint a picture and establish a theme: citizens need help, and if Congress is unwilling to act, he will.
The economy has definitely improved since the Great Recession. Unemployment is down, stocks are up, the housing market is rebounding, and consumer spending is picking up. Yet, people are still hurting. There are still many things that can be done to improve the lives of tens of millions. The Federal Reserve can only do so much; fiscal policy can be much more effective in strengthening the economic recovery.
Hence, President Obama has declared that he will use executive action when possible to aid the economy. Congressional Republicans reacted in sync. "Obama has run out of ideas..." "If [Mr. Obama] tries to ignore the [Constitution], he's going to run into a brick wall." What has Speaker Boehner been calling the brick wall up until now? The GOP has made it a political strategy to block whatever it can to ensure that Mr. Obama does not have claim to legislative achievements. The Speaker presided over record setting Filibusters and historical intransigence.
The Constitution is silent on what to do when one branch of the Government has taken an indefinite vacation. So, while Executive Action is necessary, it is not a cure all. It should not become a fix to Congressional obstructionism.
I believe that Republicans want to do whats best for the country in the long run. Like Democrats and liberals, the GOP loves its country. They certainly have different policy ideas on how to accomplish that goal. But, Congress has decided that it must win elections first before it can do its job. It's a brazen strategy not worth hiding. In having good intentions and standing by strong held convictions, the GOP has resigned to the fact that Americans can wait. We shouldn't have to.
Our leaders should look to the American people as examples. Every single day we compromise. We do not agree with all persons we come across or do business with, but we find a way to negotiate and find common ground.
Like individuals who must agree every day despite having different beliefs, Congress should forfeit its strategy of letting 2014 come and go. The time delay may be politically convenient, but it is not a good policy for Americans. It is not a winning formula either -- people will reflect their frustration at the ballot box.
In sum, Executive Action can help only so much. Mr. Boehner and I agree that the Constitution is the foundation of our great nation and must be followed. That is why I call on Speaker Boehner to fulfill his duties under Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution. You see, you were not elected to win elections, you were elected to legislate. Get to work.
Last night President Obama gave his State of the Union Address in front of his political adversary -- the "do even less" Congress. During the address, Mr. Obama focused on the personal stories of average Americans. He highlighted the anecdotes to paint a picture and establish a theme: citizens need help, and if Congress is unwilling to act, he will.
The economy has definitely improved since the Great Recession. Unemployment is down, stocks are up, the housing market is rebounding, and consumer spending is picking up. Yet, people are still hurting. There are still many things that can be done to improve the lives of tens of millions. The Federal Reserve can only do so much; fiscal policy can be much more effective in strengthening the economic recovery.
Hence, President Obama has declared that he will use executive action when possible to aid the economy. Congressional Republicans reacted in sync. "Obama has run out of ideas..." "If [Mr. Obama] tries to ignore the [Constitution], he's going to run into a brick wall." What has Speaker Boehner been calling the brick wall up until now? The GOP has made it a political strategy to block whatever it can to ensure that Mr. Obama does not have claim to legislative achievements. The Speaker presided over record setting Filibusters and historical intransigence.
The Constitution is silent on what to do when one branch of the Government has taken an indefinite vacation. So, while Executive Action is necessary, it is not a cure all. It should not become a fix to Congressional obstructionism.
I believe that Republicans want to do whats best for the country in the long run. Like Democrats and liberals, the GOP loves its country. They certainly have different policy ideas on how to accomplish that goal. But, Congress has decided that it must win elections first before it can do its job. It's a brazen strategy not worth hiding. In having good intentions and standing by strong held convictions, the GOP has resigned to the fact that Americans can wait. We shouldn't have to.
Our leaders should look to the American people as examples. Every single day we compromise. We do not agree with all persons we come across or do business with, but we find a way to negotiate and find common ground.
Like individuals who must agree every day despite having different beliefs, Congress should forfeit its strategy of letting 2014 come and go. The time delay may be politically convenient, but it is not a good policy for Americans. It is not a winning formula either -- people will reflect their frustration at the ballot box.
In sum, Executive Action can help only so much. Mr. Boehner and I agree that the Constitution is the foundation of our great nation and must be followed. That is why I call on Speaker Boehner to fulfill his duties under Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution. You see, you were not elected to win elections, you were elected to legislate. Get to work.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
2013: Incompentence over Nihilism
Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" is the go-to program for political satire, high-brow comedy, and potty jokes. In one moment during the show, a viewer can see an insightful interview on voter suppression, and in the next minute, a shtick on Chicago Pizza. The comedy central team certainly has range -- and it is no wonder that a larger majority of Americans are relying on the New Jersey native for quality news (as opposed to Cable News).
One segment, however, summarized the 2013 political year for me: Team Incompetence v. Team Nihilism. Can you guess which political party stands for nihilism and vice versa? Let me give you a hint; one was "responsible" for the Government shut-down, and the other, a botched health care roll-out.
Neither team names carry positive connotations. At this point, both political parties are facing huge electoral challenges in the future. Both have to fight their historically low favorability ratings in the upcoming 2014 elections.
In fact, the lack of faith in institutions, both Government and private, are at an all-time high. Even the reputable "60 Minutes" faced backlash when it ran with a bogus Benghazi story. It had to retract and apologize. No wonder people are pessimistic.
My posts this year have constantly focused on the GOP's absurd policies for obstruction, corporate welfare, and fiscal callousness. But, it would be a disservice to my handful of readers (I jest, it's at least a dozen) to ignore the failings of the current Administration. President Obama needs to do a better job with overseeing executive programs.
Let me be clear: I am happy with the President overall. No president in the history of our nation has had to face the amount of hatred and nonsense that he has had to deal with. He is the President in times of incomparable polarization and special-interest influence. Moreover, the GOP are not really opposing Obama, it's more like, they are opposing the imaginary Obama that they have created in their minds. Hell, if half of the things e-mailed to me about Obama were true, I would have purchased my tea party hat a long time ago.
That being said, President Obama should have appointed a head of the Health Care Exchanges at the beginning of 2011. The program, at the start, should have had a top-down hierarchical system to ensure efficiency and functionality. I was greatly disappointed that the first couple of months were plagued with glitches and bugs. Had there been better oversight, coupled with a more efficient procurement system, the problems could have been avoided.
Of course it doesn't help either that we have a minority party in Government that are nihilists, which brings me back to my central point -- I support candidates that want to improve the way things are done, not simply advocate a position of opposition. The GOP still, after three years of repeal obsession, has no alternative to the pre-ACA healthcare system. It's okay to the GOP that 40 million people remain uninsured, and that people with preexisting conditions, like cancer, diabetes, and the like, are out of luck.
It's much easier to fight for nothing, than to try to implement change -- messy, difficult, and demanding change. That's how I would summarize the 2013 political year though. We have one party willing to risk political capital to help the uninsured, and the other, willing to cash in on petty political points for every reported setback. For some reason, I had a crazy thought that after the 2012 election, we would have moved towards reconciliation and compromise. Boy, was I wrong.
Next year, 2014, we will have a choice as voters. Do we want a majority party that may mess up at times for trying to enact difficult reform? Or do we want to support the party that are naysayers, can't-doers, and perpetual alarmists? I have to admit, I don't really like either option. But, I'm willing to bat for the team that are willing to make mistakes, rather than the team willing to strive off of them. Bring on 2014.
One segment, however, summarized the 2013 political year for me: Team Incompetence v. Team Nihilism. Can you guess which political party stands for nihilism and vice versa? Let me give you a hint; one was "responsible" for the Government shut-down, and the other, a botched health care roll-out.
Neither team names carry positive connotations. At this point, both political parties are facing huge electoral challenges in the future. Both have to fight their historically low favorability ratings in the upcoming 2014 elections.
In fact, the lack of faith in institutions, both Government and private, are at an all-time high. Even the reputable "60 Minutes" faced backlash when it ran with a bogus Benghazi story. It had to retract and apologize. No wonder people are pessimistic.
My posts this year have constantly focused on the GOP's absurd policies for obstruction, corporate welfare, and fiscal callousness. But, it would be a disservice to my handful of readers (I jest, it's at least a dozen) to ignore the failings of the current Administration. President Obama needs to do a better job with overseeing executive programs.
Let me be clear: I am happy with the President overall. No president in the history of our nation has had to face the amount of hatred and nonsense that he has had to deal with. He is the President in times of incomparable polarization and special-interest influence. Moreover, the GOP are not really opposing Obama, it's more like, they are opposing the imaginary Obama that they have created in their minds. Hell, if half of the things e-mailed to me about Obama were true, I would have purchased my tea party hat a long time ago.
That being said, President Obama should have appointed a head of the Health Care Exchanges at the beginning of 2011. The program, at the start, should have had a top-down hierarchical system to ensure efficiency and functionality. I was greatly disappointed that the first couple of months were plagued with glitches and bugs. Had there been better oversight, coupled with a more efficient procurement system, the problems could have been avoided.
Of course it doesn't help either that we have a minority party in Government that are nihilists, which brings me back to my central point -- I support candidates that want to improve the way things are done, not simply advocate a position of opposition. The GOP still, after three years of repeal obsession, has no alternative to the pre-ACA healthcare system. It's okay to the GOP that 40 million people remain uninsured, and that people with preexisting conditions, like cancer, diabetes, and the like, are out of luck.
It's much easier to fight for nothing, than to try to implement change -- messy, difficult, and demanding change. That's how I would summarize the 2013 political year though. We have one party willing to risk political capital to help the uninsured, and the other, willing to cash in on petty political points for every reported setback. For some reason, I had a crazy thought that after the 2012 election, we would have moved towards reconciliation and compromise. Boy, was I wrong.
Next year, 2014, we will have a choice as voters. Do we want a majority party that may mess up at times for trying to enact difficult reform? Or do we want to support the party that are naysayers, can't-doers, and perpetual alarmists? I have to admit, I don't really like either option. But, I'm willing to bat for the team that are willing to make mistakes, rather than the team willing to strive off of them. Bring on 2014.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
obamaSCARE
"Repeal this failure before it literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens..." - Michele Bachmann, Chair of the Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives.
For every dollar spent on explaining the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. "ObamaCare," there are five dollars going into destroying it with mostly false information intended to misinform and raise the passions of partisans. I wanted to write this post so the naysayers can spend more - let's get them up to 7:1.
The recent delay of the employer mandate has been used as fodder for the House to cause more confusion. It is estimated that the employer mandate, which obligates large employers to provide health insurance, affects only one percent of the American workforce. Further, the delay does not prevent those same workers from benefiting from other aspects of ObamaCare. Perhaps more clear is the irony that has unfolded: Republicans who once requested a repeal are now objecting to its delay.
It is easier to discuss the recent developments by providing context to where we were, where we are, and hopefully, where we will be. Let's begin.
Insurance
The idea of insurance is to spread risk among a number of parties. You purchase a contract with a premium, to cover you in the event of a occurrence. That occurrence could be as simple as a cold or as complex as a surgery to combat cancer. The pooled risk, held by the big insurer, pays for the treatment in either case unless the contract did not provide for it. Thus, the insurance contract transfers risk. You will always pay the premium, but you may not face the illness.
For example, you may have seen movies, like "The Rainmaker," in which the insurer was sued for denying an insurance claim because it said it was not provided for under the insurance contract. Great Benefit, the insurance company in The Rainmaker, denied a child's claim for leukemia treatment because it said that "it was an experimental procedure," excluded from the insurance. Great Benefit lost, because they denied every claim regardless of the coverage, and Rudy Baylor, the child's attorney, became a hero. Also, I do not think the jurors liked John Voight too much.
Health Care Costs Increased Much Faster than Other Goods & Services
American health insurance also involves medical providers, i.e. doctors, hospitals, and clinics. When an occurrence happens, like a routine prostate exam, someone needs to provide the professional services. The insurer has to pay the doctors for helping the patients.
Therefore, the insurer and the providers have to enter into agreements because they have to determine the costs for their medical services. In the United States, the costs for the medical services, prior to Obamacare being passed, was increasing at an alarming rate. Compared to every other industrialized nation, we were by far spending the most. Health care spending increased to 17% of GDP, 50% higher than France, the country that spent the second most.
And despite all of our spending, we ranked 38th in overall health assessments, behind Singapore, Monaco, and Cyprus.
The uncontrollable rise in costs was caused by a number of factors, but one of the main reasons was that the providers were charging an unusually high amount for their services. A hospital visit in the United States averages at $4,267 per day compared to $1,472 in Australia, the second most expensive.
Each and every insurer negotiates their prices with providers. With each insurer and provider seeking the best return for their respective stakeholders, the patients end up paying more. Moreover, most hospitals are rewarded when they increase growth and profit, not when they improve the quality of the health care. These incentives are not conducive to affordable care.
More Uninsured
With the increase of health costs, more people could not afford to pay for insurance, because premiums had to keep up with the price of services. This exacerbated the problem because with less people contributing to the risk pool or buying health insurance, the premiums had to increase.
Despite not having insurance, individuals still get sick and they need to get help. The uninsured resorted to Emergency Rooms for typical medical services that they needed. The state and federal governments also had to pay, which means that every taxpayer bore the negative economic consequences. But even more sad was the fact that many people went bankrupt for the simple reason that they did not have health insurance and had to undergo expensive and necessary treatment.
Enter ObamaCare
President Obama entered into office with the rational belief that the status quo was simply unacceptable. Health care costs were rising incredibly fast and it was a drain on the entire economy. ObamaCare was based on a model that worked in Massachusetts, ironically when Mitt Romney was governor.
The main component of the Affordable Care Act is the individual mandate. On January 1, 2014, every citizen must purchase health insurance or face a small penalty. This provides an incentive to enter into the pool of risk shared among other insureds.
ObamaCare also gives help to those in need. I have blogged about income inequality ad nauseum and for good reason, but ObamaCare addresses this problem by giving tax credits to those with low income so that they can purchase health insurance. This is paid for by taxing the very wealthy.
In addition to the credits, ObamaCare has also given individuals more choice. The Health Care Exchanges will be an online marketplace for consumers, which will help them consider their options. These exchanges will act like an Expedia or Travelocity. It is likely that it will significantly help get more young people get insured.
Perhaps more important, and widely unknown, is the fact that insurance companies will now have to give money back to the insureds. Over $1.1 billion was given back in the summer of 2012. Thanks to the new 80/20 rule, insurance companies must spend 80% of premiums on medical care to the insureds. This 20% cap on administrative costs will help put quality of medical care in front of profits.
Placing Politics Before The Common Good
The opponents of ObamaCare will do anything in their power to mislead and attack. The House has attempted to repeal ObamaCare approximately 40 times, without success. Well, I should be more clear... without legislative success. Speaker John Boehner was able to raise over 30 million this year for his GOP. He intends to spend billions of dollars to retain control of his position in 2014.
The bottom line: ObamaCare will help the entire country and millions of Americans because it will help slow the growth of medical costs and increase coverage. In fact, it has already slowed down costs.
The next time you hear criticism about ObamaCare, remember that someone is paying the big bucks to have you hear it.
The main component of the Affordable Care Act is the individual mandate. On January 1, 2014, every citizen must purchase health insurance or face a small penalty. This provides an incentive to enter into the pool of risk shared among other insureds.
ObamaCare also gives help to those in need. I have blogged about income inequality ad nauseum and for good reason, but ObamaCare addresses this problem by giving tax credits to those with low income so that they can purchase health insurance. This is paid for by taxing the very wealthy.
In addition to the credits, ObamaCare has also given individuals more choice. The Health Care Exchanges will be an online marketplace for consumers, which will help them consider their options. These exchanges will act like an Expedia or Travelocity. It is likely that it will significantly help get more young people get insured.
Perhaps more important, and widely unknown, is the fact that insurance companies will now have to give money back to the insureds. Over $1.1 billion was given back in the summer of 2012. Thanks to the new 80/20 rule, insurance companies must spend 80% of premiums on medical care to the insureds. This 20% cap on administrative costs will help put quality of medical care in front of profits.
Placing Politics Before The Common Good
The opponents of ObamaCare will do anything in their power to mislead and attack. The House has attempted to repeal ObamaCare approximately 40 times, without success. Well, I should be more clear... without legislative success. Speaker John Boehner was able to raise over 30 million this year for his GOP. He intends to spend billions of dollars to retain control of his position in 2014.
The bottom line: ObamaCare will help the entire country and millions of Americans because it will help slow the growth of medical costs and increase coverage. In fact, it has already slowed down costs.
The next time you hear criticism about ObamaCare, remember that someone is paying the big bucks to have you hear it.
We've
made it pretty clear and I'll make it clear one more time: If the court
does not strike down the entire law, the House will move to repeal
what's left of it. - See more at:
http://www.politicalruminations.com/john-boehner-quotes/#sthash.97XSqWbi.dpuf
We've
made it pretty clear and I'll make it clear one more time: If the court
does not strike down the entire law, the House will move to repeal
what's left of it. - See more at:
http://www.politicalruminations.com/john-boehner-quotes/#sthash.97XSqWbi.dpuf
We've
made it pretty clear and I'll make it clear one more time: If the court
does not strike down the entire law, the House will move to repeal
what's left of it. - See more at:
http://www.politicalruminations.com/john-boehner-quotes/#sthash.97XSqWbi.dpuf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)