This is the term given by Republicans to Democratic techniques to portray Paul-Ryan-no-care as what it really is, tax breaks for rich people at the cost of health benefits for elders.
Nevertheless I find myself arriving at the same conclusion at which I always arrive: Republicans have a point, we must cut spending (and raise revenue) in order to get our finances in order.
In times like these, I like to turn to David Brooks - one of the NYTimes resident Republicans. Brooks is the sane type of Republican and I like getting his take on things. Just a few days ago, he put together a "Mediscare Survival Guide." This is Brooks's plan for how Republicans can make themselves politically viable while still taking steps to reduce the deficit. For starters he claims, Republicans must make it clear that Medicare as it currently exists is not solvent. This isn't exactly news, everyone knows that Medicare isn't solvent, but the Republican plan for fixing Medicare involves getting rid of Medicare. Summed up briefly it looks like this: if it no longer exists, it doesn't need fixing. This is where "mediscare" comes from, Republicans are worried that Democrats are telling Americans that Republicans want to dismantle Medicare. Perhaps that qualifies as "mediscare," but it is also the truth.
But Brooks does hit on some important points, notably what Republicans must do to make a compromise, for example, raising taxes and investing in infrastructure. In short Brooks argues that in order to be successful, Republicans must do exactly what Democrats have been advocating...interesting.
Of course, Democrats need to make concessions too. Federal spending can and should be cut, but the problem is Republicans don't have a plan for how to do that efficiently without undermining Americans who rely on government programs. This is why mediscare - in addition to being true - is an effective political tool for Democrats. Is Medicare solvent? No. Do we need to fix it? Yes. What is the Republican plan for doing that? Let me get back to you on that, unless of course you think dismantling Medicare is the solution. If Republicans had ideas there wouldn't be anything for them to be mediscared of; they could combat Democratic accusations with ideas and facts. Alas that is not the case.
And it is too bad, because America needs the ideas of both parties. We need fiscal leadership that Democrats are unwilling or unable to provide. But that leadership has to acknowledge that "shrinking the government" with cuts, cuts, cuts doesn't improve our economy in the short term, nor does it address long term issues like the insolvency of Medicare. If a loved one is sick you don't fix the problem by getting rid of the loved one, but this is the Republican plan. It's a shame that is the case, but until I hear real ideas, I'm going to mediscare away.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Playing politics
News from the world of politics! There was a special election last night in New York and in a heavily Republican district, the Democrat won. This is probably much overblown and having one more Democrat in the House of Representatives is only a small step in the right direction, but nonetheless there are some telling signs about how things are developing and the flaws in the Republican position.
First, this special election which should have been a shoo-in for the Republicans was won by the Democrat. While there are probably a multitude of factors at play, it is worth remembering the Scott Brown's victory in a Massachusetts special election was the catalyst for unfortunate Republican gains last November. Just like in that election, the defining issue in this one seemed to be Medicare except this time the tables were turned. Seniors were wrong to fear Obamacare death panels because there is no such thing. They are right to fear Paul-Ryan-no-care as it will strip them of insurance and force them to pay more. Of course, this doesn't mean that the country will take a turn in the right direction during the next election cycle, but it's a good start. It does remain to be seen whether Democrats can get serious about the budget, but since Republicans clearly aren't serious about it either, it's a good sign that Americans would rather have their tax dollars spent on Medicare than on tax cuts for millionaires.
There are other bad signs for Republicans. Yesterday, the venerable Mitt Romney, Democrat in disguise, tried to take credit for the auto bailouts that saved the industry and thousands of American jobs. There's not much to say about Romney's claim except, "sure thing Mitt, whatever you say." But there is more to this story as well. For starters, we must give credit where credit is due. Move aside, Mitt. Thank you George W. Bush for TARP. By bailing out the banks - a step that was an unfortunate necessity - you probably saved the world economy. While this may go against pure conservative ideology about the economy, there is very little good to be said about pure conservative ideology when it comes to the economy. So thank you. Furthermore, thank you to President Obama who saved the American auto industry along with thousands of American jobs. It's worth pointing out that both bailouts ultimately cost next to nothing after the loans were repaid, in fact just yesterday, Chrysler repaid their $5.1 billion loan.
But the fact that Romney is trying to take credit for the auto bailout - a truly ridiculous assertion; Romney wrote a 2008 opinion piece entitled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" - undermines Republican economic policy even more. There is no denying that pure liberal economic theory is just as silly and flawed as pure conservative theory, but there is a time to act sensible rather than to demagogue. This would be that time. The bailouts begun by Bush were necessary and good. The bailouts - despite being initiated by Bush - were labeled as just one more aspect of Democratic big government and wasteful spending by Republicans. Typical, Republicans run away from their good idea. But now that it is clear that both the bank and auto bailouts were both effective and relatively inexpensive Republicans want back on board. Enter Romney "architect of the auto bailouts."
Politics - the art of getting elected - is unfortunately just as important in our system as policy - the art of making the nation better. Generally it seems as though Republicans are better at politics but despite that, as indicated by Romney's claims and last night's election, they aren't very good at policy. This does create a conundrum for our country: we end up electing Tea Party folk who - despite their intentions - would run America into the ground if we let them. Fortunately, Americans seem to realize that despite the scary lies and the endless spew that most Republican ideas are bad. And that is a good thing for our country.
First, this special election which should have been a shoo-in for the Republicans was won by the Democrat. While there are probably a multitude of factors at play, it is worth remembering the Scott Brown's victory in a Massachusetts special election was the catalyst for unfortunate Republican gains last November. Just like in that election, the defining issue in this one seemed to be Medicare except this time the tables were turned. Seniors were wrong to fear Obamacare death panels because there is no such thing. They are right to fear Paul-Ryan-no-care as it will strip them of insurance and force them to pay more. Of course, this doesn't mean that the country will take a turn in the right direction during the next election cycle, but it's a good start. It does remain to be seen whether Democrats can get serious about the budget, but since Republicans clearly aren't serious about it either, it's a good sign that Americans would rather have their tax dollars spent on Medicare than on tax cuts for millionaires.
There are other bad signs for Republicans. Yesterday, the venerable Mitt Romney, Democrat in disguise, tried to take credit for the auto bailouts that saved the industry and thousands of American jobs. There's not much to say about Romney's claim except, "sure thing Mitt, whatever you say." But there is more to this story as well. For starters, we must give credit where credit is due. Move aside, Mitt. Thank you George W. Bush for TARP. By bailing out the banks - a step that was an unfortunate necessity - you probably saved the world economy. While this may go against pure conservative ideology about the economy, there is very little good to be said about pure conservative ideology when it comes to the economy. So thank you. Furthermore, thank you to President Obama who saved the American auto industry along with thousands of American jobs. It's worth pointing out that both bailouts ultimately cost next to nothing after the loans were repaid, in fact just yesterday, Chrysler repaid their $5.1 billion loan.
But the fact that Romney is trying to take credit for the auto bailout - a truly ridiculous assertion; Romney wrote a 2008 opinion piece entitled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" - undermines Republican economic policy even more. There is no denying that pure liberal economic theory is just as silly and flawed as pure conservative theory, but there is a time to act sensible rather than to demagogue. This would be that time. The bailouts begun by Bush were necessary and good. The bailouts - despite being initiated by Bush - were labeled as just one more aspect of Democratic big government and wasteful spending by Republicans. Typical, Republicans run away from their good idea. But now that it is clear that both the bank and auto bailouts were both effective and relatively inexpensive Republicans want back on board. Enter Romney "architect of the auto bailouts."
Politics - the art of getting elected - is unfortunately just as important in our system as policy - the art of making the nation better. Generally it seems as though Republicans are better at politics but despite that, as indicated by Romney's claims and last night's election, they aren't very good at policy. This does create a conundrum for our country: we end up electing Tea Party folk who - despite their intentions - would run America into the ground if we let them. Fortunately, Americans seem to realize that despite the scary lies and the endless spew that most Republican ideas are bad. And that is a good thing for our country.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Austerity in Europe...
...is killing the stock market in America. Alright, that was extremely hyperbolic. Actually, austerity in Europe is sending American markets lower today, but the real problem isn't the effect on American markets, the real problem is what forced austerity has done for the European economy, most notably, made things worse.
Despite the fact that we've let Europe experiment with forced austerity and fail, many American politicians are convinced that if we just stop spending money, we will burst through the chains of recession and the economy will grow at an otherworldly pace. Evidence says otherwise, but evidence doesn't win elections, fear wins election and right now, people are afraid of America's debt. In fact, people are so afraid that some of them even support measures that would cripple our economy - not raising the debt limit for example - as a way to rein in spending.
Nevermind that European austerity is hurting the American market, nevermind that European austerity is hurting the European economy, American austerity must be the solution to our economic woes. Evidence is not important, ideology is, so while we watch European countries struggle with forced austerity we should wonder why we are still considering it when the economic recovery is fragile.
Sensible people are not considering it, but there seem to be fewer and fewer of them in politics nowadays. Instead, with all the talk we've heard of slashing spending before the recession ends, we're looking at making things worse rather than better. Europe is a great example of what not to do and yet too many want to follow her lead.
Perhaps we will wizen up. Perhaps we will address the economy first and the deficit after. Perhaps unicorns will fly. Perhaps.
But until American politicians ditch the fear-mongering and deal with the facts I remain skeptical. Unfortunately, for our country and our people, the suffering and results are all to real.
Despite the fact that we've let Europe experiment with forced austerity and fail, many American politicians are convinced that if we just stop spending money, we will burst through the chains of recession and the economy will grow at an otherworldly pace. Evidence says otherwise, but evidence doesn't win elections, fear wins election and right now, people are afraid of America's debt. In fact, people are so afraid that some of them even support measures that would cripple our economy - not raising the debt limit for example - as a way to rein in spending.
Nevermind that European austerity is hurting the American market, nevermind that European austerity is hurting the European economy, American austerity must be the solution to our economic woes. Evidence is not important, ideology is, so while we watch European countries struggle with forced austerity we should wonder why we are still considering it when the economic recovery is fragile.
Sensible people are not considering it, but there seem to be fewer and fewer of them in politics nowadays. Instead, with all the talk we've heard of slashing spending before the recession ends, we're looking at making things worse rather than better. Europe is a great example of what not to do and yet too many want to follow her lead.
Perhaps we will wizen up. Perhaps we will address the economy first and the deficit after. Perhaps unicorns will fly. Perhaps.
But until American politicians ditch the fear-mongering and deal with the facts I remain skeptical. Unfortunately, for our country and our people, the suffering and results are all to real.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Palestine?
Not if Israel has anything to say about it. An historic chance for peace and democracy is sweeping through the Middle East but one of the the only two formerly democratic countries is the region is sitting on the sidelines rather than supporting the movement. Sadly for Israel, their failure to act means that they could soon find themselves caught up in the wave rather than riding it.
While Arabs take to the streets for their freedom throughout the region, Israel's leader has transparently refused to put his own country on a path to future stability and safety. President Obama took the brave and important step of calling for a return to the 1967 borders between Israel and its neighbors, lines that would create a Palestinian state in the West Bank, and Mr. Netanyahu rejected it.
Never mind that earlier in the week, Palestinians were spilling over Israel's borders to commemorate the day they fled from their homes - either voluntarily or through forced expulsion - the day that many of them still remember, and a day that is more important now than ever before. In past years, there were no Arab uprisings from which the Palestinians could draw inspiration. Now, as Palestinians watch Arabs all across the Middle East and North Africa claim basic freedoms, what are they to think?
Israel has criticized the president's speech yesterday, saying that he doesn't understand the realities of the Middle East. Sad irony there. The reality in the Middle East is that a Jewish democracy is ruling over territory that is internationally recognized as being illegally occupied and that each day, that Jewish democracy becomes a bit less Jewish; one of these days it will cease being Jewish altogether, unless of course it wants to cease being democratic.
UNLESS, Israeli leadership is willing to make tough decisions. The United States is Israel's only true backer, but our relationship with Israel is pretty one-sided. Israel needs America. America would be fine without Israel. I'm not suggesting that we break up with Israel. Far from it. The United States should remain firmly committed to our democratic partner in the Middle East. But friendship does not mean you tell the other side what they want to hear, it means you tell them what they need to hear. And what Israel needs to hear is that are losing support all over the world as they move closer and closer to becoming an apartheid state. What they need to hear is that they will soon have to choose between being a Jewish state and being a democratic one. What they need to hear is the voices of millions of Arabs crying out for freedom.
The United States should be frank with Israel; we have given them billions of dollars, military equipment and support against the pressures of the international community for decades. But we will no longer jeopardize our own interests. The absence of a Palestinian state is dangerous for America. Chump dictators all over the Middle East have made being anti-Israel the cornerstone of their foreign policy for decades. Many of those dictators have made being anti-Israel the ONLY part of their policy, either foreign or domestic for much of that time. Those countries are producing terrorists who buy into the mythology of America being at war against Islam. A Palestinian state alone won't solve that problem, but it will go a long way towards undermining the mythology.
It is certainly not Israel's fault that they have become the scapegoat for years worth of failed Arab leadership. It is not entirely their fault that a Palestinian state does not exist. In the past, Palestinian leaders, like other Arab leaders chose not to focus on the problems facing their own people but rather used Israel as an excuse for their problems. However that is no longer the case. Palestinian leadership has turned the West Bank, if not Gaza, into a safe, economically vibrant place. That leadership is willing to make concessions on a number of issues, and - especially in light of the Arab Spring - Israel would be foolish not to make a serious attempt at peace.
Apparently that will not be happening. Just today, Netanyahu rejected Obama's proposal to return to the 1967 borders. That rejection is not a devastating loss, as any proposal would have to include land swaps to accommodate illegal settlements inside the West Bank anyhow. Nevertheless, Netanyahu's obtuseness is a detriment to the peace process. Refusing to acknowledge that continued settlement building will only create an apartheid state will lead to Israel...well, becoming an apartheid state.
So in a few months there will be a United Nations vote on Palestinian statehood without a functioning Palestinian state. That vote will pass despite efforts by both the US and Israel to stop it. The rest of the world is fed up with Israel's ongoing illegal occupation. It was easier to support Israel when they were the victim of irrational Palestinian and Arab violence. It is much harder to stand up for them when they refuse to act in their own self interest.
But no UN vote is going to lead to a true Palestinian state, and without a true Palestinian state, Israel's borders will be, as Netanyahu says, "indefensible." Why? Because just like in Egpyt, Libya, Tunisia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia there will be millions of disenfranchised Arabs living inside who want nothing more than basic human rights. Those Palestinians will not have to breach Israel's borders to make their point; they will already be living inside of them.
While Arabs take to the streets for their freedom throughout the region, Israel's leader has transparently refused to put his own country on a path to future stability and safety. President Obama took the brave and important step of calling for a return to the 1967 borders between Israel and its neighbors, lines that would create a Palestinian state in the West Bank, and Mr. Netanyahu rejected it.
Never mind that earlier in the week, Palestinians were spilling over Israel's borders to commemorate the day they fled from their homes - either voluntarily or through forced expulsion - the day that many of them still remember, and a day that is more important now than ever before. In past years, there were no Arab uprisings from which the Palestinians could draw inspiration. Now, as Palestinians watch Arabs all across the Middle East and North Africa claim basic freedoms, what are they to think?
Israel has criticized the president's speech yesterday, saying that he doesn't understand the realities of the Middle East. Sad irony there. The reality in the Middle East is that a Jewish democracy is ruling over territory that is internationally recognized as being illegally occupied and that each day, that Jewish democracy becomes a bit less Jewish; one of these days it will cease being Jewish altogether, unless of course it wants to cease being democratic.
UNLESS, Israeli leadership is willing to make tough decisions. The United States is Israel's only true backer, but our relationship with Israel is pretty one-sided. Israel needs America. America would be fine without Israel. I'm not suggesting that we break up with Israel. Far from it. The United States should remain firmly committed to our democratic partner in the Middle East. But friendship does not mean you tell the other side what they want to hear, it means you tell them what they need to hear. And what Israel needs to hear is that are losing support all over the world as they move closer and closer to becoming an apartheid state. What they need to hear is that they will soon have to choose between being a Jewish state and being a democratic one. What they need to hear is the voices of millions of Arabs crying out for freedom.
The United States should be frank with Israel; we have given them billions of dollars, military equipment and support against the pressures of the international community for decades. But we will no longer jeopardize our own interests. The absence of a Palestinian state is dangerous for America. Chump dictators all over the Middle East have made being anti-Israel the cornerstone of their foreign policy for decades. Many of those dictators have made being anti-Israel the ONLY part of their policy, either foreign or domestic for much of that time. Those countries are producing terrorists who buy into the mythology of America being at war against Islam. A Palestinian state alone won't solve that problem, but it will go a long way towards undermining the mythology.
It is certainly not Israel's fault that they have become the scapegoat for years worth of failed Arab leadership. It is not entirely their fault that a Palestinian state does not exist. In the past, Palestinian leaders, like other Arab leaders chose not to focus on the problems facing their own people but rather used Israel as an excuse for their problems. However that is no longer the case. Palestinian leadership has turned the West Bank, if not Gaza, into a safe, economically vibrant place. That leadership is willing to make concessions on a number of issues, and - especially in light of the Arab Spring - Israel would be foolish not to make a serious attempt at peace.
Apparently that will not be happening. Just today, Netanyahu rejected Obama's proposal to return to the 1967 borders. That rejection is not a devastating loss, as any proposal would have to include land swaps to accommodate illegal settlements inside the West Bank anyhow. Nevertheless, Netanyahu's obtuseness is a detriment to the peace process. Refusing to acknowledge that continued settlement building will only create an apartheid state will lead to Israel...well, becoming an apartheid state.
So in a few months there will be a United Nations vote on Palestinian statehood without a functioning Palestinian state. That vote will pass despite efforts by both the US and Israel to stop it. The rest of the world is fed up with Israel's ongoing illegal occupation. It was easier to support Israel when they were the victim of irrational Palestinian and Arab violence. It is much harder to stand up for them when they refuse to act in their own self interest.
But no UN vote is going to lead to a true Palestinian state, and without a true Palestinian state, Israel's borders will be, as Netanyahu says, "indefensible." Why? Because just like in Egpyt, Libya, Tunisia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia there will be millions of disenfranchised Arabs living inside who want nothing more than basic human rights. Those Palestinians will not have to breach Israel's borders to make their point; they will already be living inside of them.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
In defense of John McCain
While I have a diminished level of respect for John McCain after his sharp turn to the right following his defeat in the 2008 presidential election, the man still has more fortitude than many in his party. In 2008 while campaigning I thought very highly of McCain; he had principles. I blame his current condition not on losing the presidential election but on the Tea Party who mounted an unsuccessful primary challenge for his seat during the midterm elections. This is what the Tea Party does, drives sensible Republicans so far to the right that they become distasteful.
But McCain has not completely sold out. In fact just today, Faux News reported that he was lambasted by Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum. Why? Because as Santorum says, "he (McCain) doesn't understand how enhanced interrogation works."
That's quite a thing to say about man who literally cannot lift his arms above his head after spending more than five years being tortured by the North Vietnamese. You would think that even if he disagreed with the effectiveness of torture, Santorum would have enough respect not to explain it to John McCain.
McCain for his part asserted that torture had nothing to do with the intelligence gathering that went into finding Osama bin Laden. Whatever the case, I'm proud that McCain showed the same courage now in protesting torture as he did when running for president. While all of his Republican peers glow when talking about pushing Muslims's heads under water, McCain stands up for doing the right thing, or at least not doing the wrong thing.
The war on terror is a war in the sense that the fighting on the ground is happening with guns and bombs. However it's not going to be won with those guns and bombs. We killed bin Laden, but the venom he spewed is still out there and no bomb can kill an idea. Torturing captives lends credence to the jihadist mythology. There is a fine line to be drawn, because to "win" (which is an ambiguous term in this sense) we do have to kill the bad guys, the Osama bin Ladens of the world. But more importantly we have to kill the ideas and that only happens when we prove them wrong. Allowing bin Laden to live would have meant more unacceptable deaths, but allowing his message to flourish will result in a great number of unacceptable deaths. Bullets killed bin Laden, actions will kill his ideas. One of those actions is ceasing to torture enemy combatants.
John McCain knows what it means to be tortured, and I respect him for standing up against it still. It would be nice if Rick Santorum came to the same conclusion although I hope he does not have to suffer similarly to arrive there.
But McCain has not completely sold out. In fact just today, Faux News reported that he was lambasted by Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum. Why? Because as Santorum says, "he (McCain) doesn't understand how enhanced interrogation works."
That's quite a thing to say about man who literally cannot lift his arms above his head after spending more than five years being tortured by the North Vietnamese. You would think that even if he disagreed with the effectiveness of torture, Santorum would have enough respect not to explain it to John McCain.
McCain for his part asserted that torture had nothing to do with the intelligence gathering that went into finding Osama bin Laden. Whatever the case, I'm proud that McCain showed the same courage now in protesting torture as he did when running for president. While all of his Republican peers glow when talking about pushing Muslims's heads under water, McCain stands up for doing the right thing, or at least not doing the wrong thing.
The war on terror is a war in the sense that the fighting on the ground is happening with guns and bombs. However it's not going to be won with those guns and bombs. We killed bin Laden, but the venom he spewed is still out there and no bomb can kill an idea. Torturing captives lends credence to the jihadist mythology. There is a fine line to be drawn, because to "win" (which is an ambiguous term in this sense) we do have to kill the bad guys, the Osama bin Ladens of the world. But more importantly we have to kill the ideas and that only happens when we prove them wrong. Allowing bin Laden to live would have meant more unacceptable deaths, but allowing his message to flourish will result in a great number of unacceptable deaths. Bullets killed bin Laden, actions will kill his ideas. One of those actions is ceasing to torture enemy combatants.
John McCain knows what it means to be tortured, and I respect him for standing up against it still. It would be nice if Rick Santorum came to the same conclusion although I hope he does not have to suffer similarly to arrive there.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Altruism, neuroscience and Medicare
I was struck by two op-ed pieces in the New York Times today, the first of which entitled "Nice Guys Finish First," is about how cooperation and altruism are hard-wired into human beings; we've evolved a sense of self that is greater than just the individual. As the author, David Brooks, puts it, "serving others may produce the same sort of pleasure as gratifying a personal desire."
This isn't a new revelation, but it's certainly true and it ties in directly to the next article which unlike Brook's piece was overtly political. "The Need for Greed" by Timothy Egan details exactly how Paul-Ryan-no-care was designed to win the support of seniors by allowing them to stay in the Medicare program as it exists while ensuring that younger generations would get none of the benefits. Seniors, Ryan believed, would support the plan because it didn't affect their benefits. Ryan and the Republicans are counting on greedy seniors to vote in their own self-interest and elect Republicans.
Enter altruism. As both Brooks and Egan point out, people can be expected to behave or vote in their own-self interest, but that term is a bit broader than the traditional "me." Any given person's self-interest includes family members, friends and often the broader community. In addition to being a plan that will end Medicare (even Newt Gingrich called it right-wing social engineering), Paul-Ryan-no-care isn't even politically viable. Americans - seniors in particular, in fact the very people Ryan thought wouldn't be opposed since they weren't affected - have stood up for their own self-interest: the American community.
Paul-Ryan-no-care, right-wing social engineering is bad for America. As I've said in previous posts, the Republican plan to lower the deficit is laudatory in that it proposes tough steps. But those tough steps are also bad ones. And Americans, even those who were supposed to act selfishly, acknowledge that. America is better off for the evolved sense of communal self that human beings share. As long as Republicans act in opposition to that by trying to deny people security and well-being, they will fail.
This isn't a new revelation, but it's certainly true and it ties in directly to the next article which unlike Brook's piece was overtly political. "The Need for Greed" by Timothy Egan details exactly how Paul-Ryan-no-care was designed to win the support of seniors by allowing them to stay in the Medicare program as it exists while ensuring that younger generations would get none of the benefits. Seniors, Ryan believed, would support the plan because it didn't affect their benefits. Ryan and the Republicans are counting on greedy seniors to vote in their own self-interest and elect Republicans.
Enter altruism. As both Brooks and Egan point out, people can be expected to behave or vote in their own-self interest, but that term is a bit broader than the traditional "me." Any given person's self-interest includes family members, friends and often the broader community. In addition to being a plan that will end Medicare (even Newt Gingrich called it right-wing social engineering), Paul-Ryan-no-care isn't even politically viable. Americans - seniors in particular, in fact the very people Ryan thought wouldn't be opposed since they weren't affected - have stood up for their own self-interest: the American community.
Paul-Ryan-no-care, right-wing social engineering is bad for America. As I've said in previous posts, the Republican plan to lower the deficit is laudatory in that it proposes tough steps. But those tough steps are also bad ones. And Americans, even those who were supposed to act selfishly, acknowledge that. America is better off for the evolved sense of communal self that human beings share. As long as Republicans act in opposition to that by trying to deny people security and well-being, they will fail.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Big Budget, Big Cuts, Big Problem
In the last few days as debate over raising the federal debt limit has escalated, the opening salvo has been fired by Republicans, who have started to frame the debate on their terms. This isn't surprising given that Republicans have somehow convinced America that they are the party of fiscal responsibility despite spending the years 2000-2008 making some of the most fiscally irresponsible decisions in our country's history.
Nevertheless, we've been told by Speaker John Boehner that any vote to increase the debt limit must also come with trillions of dollars in spending cuts. That's right America, if Republicans have their way, we will either default on our loans or cut spending in a manner that is devastating to millions of Americans although very lucrative for the rich.
The saddest part about all this is that Republicans ideas are not bad, but Republican tactics and ideology are far from right.
Speaker Boehner, like most Republicans, is right that America needs to curb long-term spending. Our major budgetary and deficit issues are going to become a real problem if we can't get them fixed. However, they're not a major problem right now which is why the draconian cuts demanded by the Tea Party during the most recent budget debate were not only immoral, they were downright silly. Nevertheless, there is a budget issue that does need to be resolved. Republicans have for years convinced the public that this is their priority even though previous Republican presidents, including his conservative majesty Ronald Reagan, have made America's debt problems worse rather than better. However since Republicans don't have any ideas for how to fix any of the other myriad issues America faces, I'll play along with their fiscal charade. Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility!
So why then is John Boehner threatening to hold the economy and the livelihood of millions of Americans captive if he can't get trillions in spending cuts? The answer lies in the ugliness of Republican ideology, but also in the fact that the party's good ideas are blighted by their bad ones. Boehner and his people should be sitting down and coming up with substantial cuts - and tax increases - to present to the President. They should be looking at ways to reduce military spending, upping the retirement age for Social Security, improving the new healthcare law and cutting silly discretionary spending like subsidies for corn and oil. They should also be facing the reality that without tax increases, we cannot fix our budget issues, but even on that issue, Republicans could show leadership and back tax increases without increasing tax rates. But these are not the things Republicans are focusing on. If they were, I would be supporting them, but they are not. Instead, they are demagoguing about "Obamacare" and tax increases. Their only real plan for decreasing the deficit cuts benefits for millions in order to accommodate tax cuts for a few and it does nothing to actually address the primary driver of the deficit: skyrocketing healthcare costs. The Republican party today is both morally and intellectually bankrupt. The only "ideas" they have are taken from the playbook of an era when it was ok to see the world as haves and have nots, and treat the have nots as though they were not people deserving of basic necessities and opportunities. Even if that were acceptable, those "ideas" still don't address America's problems.
So we're left with Republican demagoguery and we're left with their bad ideas and it's a shame because it doesn't have to be that way. Republicans could lead. They could present their case to America with facts and with a plan because the debate they want to have is one we should be having. But alas, facts and plans don't seem to be the forte of the Republican party these days and so instead of a necessary and intelligent debate with an important goal in mind, we're stuck with a plan to strip Americans of their benefits and funnel excess money to the wealthy.
Nevertheless, we've been told by Speaker John Boehner that any vote to increase the debt limit must also come with trillions of dollars in spending cuts. That's right America, if Republicans have their way, we will either default on our loans or cut spending in a manner that is devastating to millions of Americans although very lucrative for the rich.
The saddest part about all this is that Republicans ideas are not bad, but Republican tactics and ideology are far from right.
Speaker Boehner, like most Republicans, is right that America needs to curb long-term spending. Our major budgetary and deficit issues are going to become a real problem if we can't get them fixed. However, they're not a major problem right now which is why the draconian cuts demanded by the Tea Party during the most recent budget debate were not only immoral, they were downright silly. Nevertheless, there is a budget issue that does need to be resolved. Republicans have for years convinced the public that this is their priority even though previous Republican presidents, including his conservative majesty Ronald Reagan, have made America's debt problems worse rather than better. However since Republicans don't have any ideas for how to fix any of the other myriad issues America faces, I'll play along with their fiscal charade. Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility!
So why then is John Boehner threatening to hold the economy and the livelihood of millions of Americans captive if he can't get trillions in spending cuts? The answer lies in the ugliness of Republican ideology, but also in the fact that the party's good ideas are blighted by their bad ones. Boehner and his people should be sitting down and coming up with substantial cuts - and tax increases - to present to the President. They should be looking at ways to reduce military spending, upping the retirement age for Social Security, improving the new healthcare law and cutting silly discretionary spending like subsidies for corn and oil. They should also be facing the reality that without tax increases, we cannot fix our budget issues, but even on that issue, Republicans could show leadership and back tax increases without increasing tax rates. But these are not the things Republicans are focusing on. If they were, I would be supporting them, but they are not. Instead, they are demagoguing about "Obamacare" and tax increases. Their only real plan for decreasing the deficit cuts benefits for millions in order to accommodate tax cuts for a few and it does nothing to actually address the primary driver of the deficit: skyrocketing healthcare costs. The Republican party today is both morally and intellectually bankrupt. The only "ideas" they have are taken from the playbook of an era when it was ok to see the world as haves and have nots, and treat the have nots as though they were not people deserving of basic necessities and opportunities. Even if that were acceptable, those "ideas" still don't address America's problems.
So we're left with Republican demagoguery and we're left with their bad ideas and it's a shame because it doesn't have to be that way. Republicans could lead. They could present their case to America with facts and with a plan because the debate they want to have is one we should be having. But alas, facts and plans don't seem to be the forte of the Republican party these days and so instead of a necessary and intelligent debate with an important goal in mind, we're stuck with a plan to strip Americans of their benefits and funnel excess money to the wealthy.
Monday, May 9, 2011
America post-bin Laden
This post has nothing to do with the implications of bin Laden's death, but is rather about how his death has become the only newsworthy story in the last week.
It's great that he is dead and clearly there are a lot of important and intriguing plots going on concerning his death and its aftermath. For the time being, I'll let those issues rest.
Because we need to return home and examine our own issues. Bin Laden is gone, but the recession is not. Nor are other economic issues that we need to resolve. First off, comes the debate over the debt ceiling. Republicans, particularly the Tea Party variety, have threatened to vote against raising the debt ceiling. If that were to happen then at some point this summer the United States, for the first time in our history, would default on our debt. For a step by step breakdown of how awful that would be for the American economy, I'll refer you to Matthew James, chairman of the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee for JP Morgan Chase.
Now Republicans have been playing chicken with the debt limit, announcing that they will not vote to raise it unless they get substantial spending cuts in return. Republicans are right to push for spending cuts, but as we've seen in the past, they don't do a very good job of linking funds to outcomes. For example cutting funding for Planned Parenthood would lead to an increase in spending on entitlement programs. That is conveniently ignored by Republicans who lately have been in the business of making statements that are not factual and do not apply to reality.
But it is almost a forgone conclusion that House Republicans will take a stand against doing the smart thing and without raising the debt limit we will default. With that in mind, what are some smart cuts we should be making anyhow? After all, if Republicans are going to hold our country's economic future hostage, we should at least get some smart spending cuts out of them, cuts such as:
1) Military spending - Osama may be dead, but the war against his followers certainly is not over. However, perhaps we can find a smarter way to wage that war now that we've cut the head off the snake. Bin Laden's death is a great symbolic victory for the United States, and now that we have achieved that victory, we can and should rethink our strategy in Afghanistan. Additionally, spending on conventional military weapons should be cut to reflect the changing nature of warfare.
2) Farm subsidies - You know what is in (almost) everything you eat and drink? High fructose corn syrup. You know why? Because the government pays farmers to grow corn. You know why? Neither do I. In addition to being bad for you (though no worse than sugar), high fructose corn syrup is cheap meaning that it replaces sugar in processed foods, foods that cause obesity and other lifestyle diseases that ultimately raise the cost of healthcare.
3) Money to oil companies - Dirtying the planet and giving money to people who will use it to put bombs under American soldier's feet. Let's give these people more taxpayer money!
These are only a start, a lot of the cuts that need to be made aren't so much cuts as they are changes to existing systems. The retirement age needs to be raised, healthcare spending needs to be reined in and taxes need to go up. Both Democrats and Republicans are loathe to touch some of these issues. Some steps have been taken to address the issue of rising healthcare costs (Obamacare) and other steps have been proposed to ignore it (Paul-Ryan-non-care).
In the short term, there are much more important things to do than fixing the deficit, like putting Americans back to work. If we can fix the economy, the budget problems will be at least partially mitigated. Nevertheless, one side of the political spectrum has taken up the banner of austerity - brought to you by the same people who gave us Bush tax cuts and the Iraq war - and because they have made it their issue, they won't go quietly into the night without fighting for it tooth and nail.
Ultimately, the debt limit will be raised and cuts will probably be made. Let's just home the former happens sooner rather than later and that the latter is done in a manner that saves essential programs and links funds to results, not in the wanton manner that Republicans have gone about this whole process recently.
It's great that he is dead and clearly there are a lot of important and intriguing plots going on concerning his death and its aftermath. For the time being, I'll let those issues rest.
Because we need to return home and examine our own issues. Bin Laden is gone, but the recession is not. Nor are other economic issues that we need to resolve. First off, comes the debate over the debt ceiling. Republicans, particularly the Tea Party variety, have threatened to vote against raising the debt ceiling. If that were to happen then at some point this summer the United States, for the first time in our history, would default on our debt. For a step by step breakdown of how awful that would be for the American economy, I'll refer you to Matthew James, chairman of the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee for JP Morgan Chase.
Now Republicans have been playing chicken with the debt limit, announcing that they will not vote to raise it unless they get substantial spending cuts in return. Republicans are right to push for spending cuts, but as we've seen in the past, they don't do a very good job of linking funds to outcomes. For example cutting funding for Planned Parenthood would lead to an increase in spending on entitlement programs. That is conveniently ignored by Republicans who lately have been in the business of making statements that are not factual and do not apply to reality.
But it is almost a forgone conclusion that House Republicans will take a stand against doing the smart thing and without raising the debt limit we will default. With that in mind, what are some smart cuts we should be making anyhow? After all, if Republicans are going to hold our country's economic future hostage, we should at least get some smart spending cuts out of them, cuts such as:
1) Military spending - Osama may be dead, but the war against his followers certainly is not over. However, perhaps we can find a smarter way to wage that war now that we've cut the head off the snake. Bin Laden's death is a great symbolic victory for the United States, and now that we have achieved that victory, we can and should rethink our strategy in Afghanistan. Additionally, spending on conventional military weapons should be cut to reflect the changing nature of warfare.
2) Farm subsidies - You know what is in (almost) everything you eat and drink? High fructose corn syrup. You know why? Because the government pays farmers to grow corn. You know why? Neither do I. In addition to being bad for you (though no worse than sugar), high fructose corn syrup is cheap meaning that it replaces sugar in processed foods, foods that cause obesity and other lifestyle diseases that ultimately raise the cost of healthcare.
3) Money to oil companies - Dirtying the planet and giving money to people who will use it to put bombs under American soldier's feet. Let's give these people more taxpayer money!
These are only a start, a lot of the cuts that need to be made aren't so much cuts as they are changes to existing systems. The retirement age needs to be raised, healthcare spending needs to be reined in and taxes need to go up. Both Democrats and Republicans are loathe to touch some of these issues. Some steps have been taken to address the issue of rising healthcare costs (Obamacare) and other steps have been proposed to ignore it (Paul-Ryan-non-care).
In the short term, there are much more important things to do than fixing the deficit, like putting Americans back to work. If we can fix the economy, the budget problems will be at least partially mitigated. Nevertheless, one side of the political spectrum has taken up the banner of austerity - brought to you by the same people who gave us Bush tax cuts and the Iraq war - and because they have made it their issue, they won't go quietly into the night without fighting for it tooth and nail.
Ultimately, the debt limit will be raised and cuts will probably be made. Let's just home the former happens sooner rather than later and that the latter is done in a manner that saves essential programs and links funds to results, not in the wanton manner that Republicans have gone about this whole process recently.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
A note on the celebration of death
The mass murderer responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans is dead. I'd like to comment on the celebrations following the announcement of bin Laden's death. I did not attend any of the spontaneous celebrations the erupted in New York, indeed, I did not even know they were happening. Having said that, I stated in yesterday's blog that I was celebrating and that others should be as well. After posting, I received numerous comments about how two rights don't make a wrong, many of them even including a fake MLK quote. While I acknowledge that it may be callous to celebrate death, even the death of someone as evil as Osama bin Laden, I stand by my statements.
Ideally we would live in a world without evil, but we don't. A mass murderer killed thousands of innocent Americans as well as citizens of many other countries on 9/11/2001. The innocents murdered that day represented multiple races and nationalities and beliefs, but they had one thing in common: not one of them deserved to die. There was a degree of justice in Osama's death, but more importantly, the world is a better and safer place now because he is gone. I'd like to think we could live in a world without violence, but when the Osama bin Ladens and the Muammar Qaddafis of the world use force to kill innocents we must meet them on their level. If we allow killers to kill indiscriminately we are making the world worse, not better. Force should always be our last resort, but when we can save lives by using force we should. When the victims of our force are people who have committed gross atrocities, it is not unacceptable for us to celebrate.
It is not ideal for us to be happy about death, but when thousands of our countrymen died because of bin Laden and when thousands more have been killed because of wars that were started in the aftermath of 9/11, it is completely understandable that bin Laden became a hated national figure. For many his death represents closure; for many others it may signal an end to the conflict that he started.
Personally, I'm celebrating because the world is a better place today. A mass murderer is dead. His victims included not only Americans, but innocent Muslims throughout the Middle East. He killed wantonly, promoted violence and hatred, and espoused a worldview that called for the deaths of millions. Had we not pursued him relentlessly for a decade and ultimately killed him, he undoubtedly would have killed again. Indeed, even while on the run, he did kill again, though most of his attacks were perpetrated against his fellow Muslims.
On Sunday night, he got a bullet in the brain. Perhaps it's my baser instincts, but I'm happy that the world is now without Osama bin Laden.
Ideally we would live in a world without evil, but we don't. A mass murderer killed thousands of innocent Americans as well as citizens of many other countries on 9/11/2001. The innocents murdered that day represented multiple races and nationalities and beliefs, but they had one thing in common: not one of them deserved to die. There was a degree of justice in Osama's death, but more importantly, the world is a better and safer place now because he is gone. I'd like to think we could live in a world without violence, but when the Osama bin Ladens and the Muammar Qaddafis of the world use force to kill innocents we must meet them on their level. If we allow killers to kill indiscriminately we are making the world worse, not better. Force should always be our last resort, but when we can save lives by using force we should. When the victims of our force are people who have committed gross atrocities, it is not unacceptable for us to celebrate.
It is not ideal for us to be happy about death, but when thousands of our countrymen died because of bin Laden and when thousands more have been killed because of wars that were started in the aftermath of 9/11, it is completely understandable that bin Laden became a hated national figure. For many his death represents closure; for many others it may signal an end to the conflict that he started.
Personally, I'm celebrating because the world is a better place today. A mass murderer is dead. His victims included not only Americans, but innocent Muslims throughout the Middle East. He killed wantonly, promoted violence and hatred, and espoused a worldview that called for the deaths of millions. Had we not pursued him relentlessly for a decade and ultimately killed him, he undoubtedly would have killed again. Indeed, even while on the run, he did kill again, though most of his attacks were perpetrated against his fellow Muslims.
On Sunday night, he got a bullet in the brain. Perhaps it's my baser instincts, but I'm happy that the world is now without Osama bin Laden.
Monday, May 2, 2011
So Long, Farewell
We'll see you in hell. If there is such a place, Osama bin Laden is undoubtedly there having a pineapple shoved up his arse a la Hitler in "Little Nicky."
Americans all over the country are celebrating and rightfully so; bin Laden's death comes nearly a decade after the 9/11 attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans and sparked wars that have killed thousands more as well as thousands of Afghans and Iraqis. The entire world should be celebrating right now.
As I read the details of bin Laden's death I can only help but wonder what will change. Certainly the war on terror is not over, nor should it be. Bin Laden's acolytes are already vowing their revenge, and with all the attention bin Laden has received over the last decade there are plenty of acolytes, many of whom have probably been able to establish themselves, having received less attention than bin Laden.
But in light of bin Laden's death and with the democratic movements in the Middle East largely shunning his rhetoric of hate and violence anyhow, this truly marks the beginning of the end of the war on terror. We must be diligent and we must persist, but as the world moves forward there is less and less space for the evil people espousing violence. Bin Laden was the figurehead for this and although probably a less functional terrorist than some others because of the scrutiny he was under, his death will be a blow to radical Islamic terrorists worldwide.
It took nearly a decade but as both President Obama and President Bush said, justice was done. America is celebrating and peace-loving people worldwide should be celebrating with us.
Americans all over the country are celebrating and rightfully so; bin Laden's death comes nearly a decade after the 9/11 attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans and sparked wars that have killed thousands more as well as thousands of Afghans and Iraqis. The entire world should be celebrating right now.
As I read the details of bin Laden's death I can only help but wonder what will change. Certainly the war on terror is not over, nor should it be. Bin Laden's acolytes are already vowing their revenge, and with all the attention bin Laden has received over the last decade there are plenty of acolytes, many of whom have probably been able to establish themselves, having received less attention than bin Laden.
But in light of bin Laden's death and with the democratic movements in the Middle East largely shunning his rhetoric of hate and violence anyhow, this truly marks the beginning of the end of the war on terror. We must be diligent and we must persist, but as the world moves forward there is less and less space for the evil people espousing violence. Bin Laden was the figurehead for this and although probably a less functional terrorist than some others because of the scrutiny he was under, his death will be a blow to radical Islamic terrorists worldwide.
It took nearly a decade but as both President Obama and President Bush said, justice was done. America is celebrating and peace-loving people worldwide should be celebrating with us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)