Ok, I admit it, there is no such thing as Santorumcare. I just made up the term in the hopes that you would be intrigued by the title and read this. Truthfully, Santorum doesn't really seem to have any forward-looking ideas. His "plan" to fix healthcare in America is to repeal the current law. The same cannot be said of Mitt Romney who is essentially the law's architect but is now playing the role of Dr. Frankenstein, racing about trying to kill his own creation.
All of this may be moot as the Supreme Court may very well rule individual mandate unconstitutional months before the Presidential election takes place, which is what this post is actually about, not Rick Santorum's lack of ideas.
After Tuesday, commentators were telling us that Obamacare - specifically the individual mandate - was on the ropes. It may very well be that the Supreme Court ultimately votes (along partisan lines) to overturn the law or at least the individual mandate. Though I support the law, I have acknowledged that it may be unconstitutional to require Americans to purchase healthcare. However that really isn't the point, and it is certainly not up to me to decide.
The point is that if the Supreme Court does strike down all or part of Obamacare, America will be back at square one, facing rising and unsustainable healthcare costs. Once again we will have a choice between differing ideologies on what needs to be done, but with Obamacare out of the way we will be faced with the Republican alternative: Santorumcare, or, put more bluntly, no plan at all.
This is the real problem facing America, and it applies to more than just healthcare. One of our two political parties has retreated from reality, and the only solutions it proffers are repealing laws designed to fix problems. There are no ideas to address the issues. Obamacare may very well be unconstitutional and so be it, but Obamacare was an attempt to fix a problem. A flawed attempt, but a good one nonetheless, and certainly better than Santorumcare which was and is the status quo.
If Obamacare is deemed unconstitutional whether in part or in whole, the nation will still need ideas and policies to extend health insurance to the nearly 50 million Americans who don't have it, both as a moral obligation, and as a national economic imperative. We cannot go on ignoring the plight of nearly one in every six Americans, and we cannot afford the rising costs associated with the current system when unpaid healthcare costs are covered by the taxpayer both in the form of government money and as reflected by higher premiums for those who have coverage. There is a lot that needs fixing.
While I still remain cautiously optimistic that the Court will uphold Obamacare, I am nervous enough to ponder next steps, especially because during the last round of healthcare debates, one side contributed ideas, the other side screamed death panels. One side tried to have a conversation, the other side spread lies and misinformation. One side presented facts and numbers, the other side wantonly ignored them. One side made an attempt to tackle the problem, the other declared that they would make the issue "Obama's Waterloo."
Until Republicans are ready to put their grown-up pants back on and begin contributing to the national conversation rather than screaming louder than the other team and spreading misinformation Americans will be faced with the choice between the flawed and the nothing. Obamacare vs. Santorumcare. Which would you rather have: ideas and solutions or lies and demagoguery?
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Super ImPACtful
Perhaps you've heard of Super PACs, the "unaffiliated" organizations that raise and spend millions on behalf on political campaigns, just not in collaboration with those campaigns, as if anyone believes that. Super PACs have their origins in the infamous Citizens United Supreme Court Case in which the court ruled that corporations have the same rights to free speech as citizens, and can thus spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns. Nothing like activist judges undermining our great nation.
Since the Citizens United decision was handed down in early 2010, this year's presidential election marks the first time we are seeing the full scope of what Super PACs are capable of, and the results are scary. Super PACs for each of the major Republican candidates have already spent millions in the primaries bashing each other's skulls. While it makes me happy to see Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb go at each other mercilessly, the amount of money spent on negative advertising is abhorrent. Of course, the President, who is one heckuva fundraiser, hasn't even really gotten his Super PAC up and running yet, perhaps because, "legally," he's not allowed to collaborate with the Super PAC, but really because for the time being he is content to sit back and watch the doofuses beat on each other.
But soon, Obama will unleash his financial firepower, and Americans will be inundated and lambasted with the competing commentary of two men who want to be president. Never mind that Super PACs are not allowed to work in conjunction with the official campaign - we all know that's a joke - and never mind that there are other channels through which both Democrats and Republicans have, can, and will raise money, the Super PAC has changed the game of politics.
Lamentably, all Americans are now going to suffer. Perhaps Mitt Romney's huge war chest will allow him to oust Obama in November and some will be happy. Perhaps Obama's even larger war chest will allow him to defeat Romney and I will be happy. It doesn't really matter. When small handfuls of multi-millionaires are writing checks to fund political campaigns, ordinary Americans, the yous and mes of the world, lose.
One of the biggest problems, if not the biggest problem with our "democracy" is that power is not wielded by we the people, it is wielded by past presidents and historical figures, mostly Benjamin Franklin. I may have a voice and a vote, but my voice is drowned out by the barrage of television ads paid for by special interests groups, and there is a special interest group for almost everything. My elected officials are less beholden to me than they are to the moneyed interests that too often buy the elections for them. I may have a vote, but I don't have a million dollars, and across the political spectrum, most politicians are far more interested in those millions that I don't have than the one vote I do have.
The Supreme Court made a huge mistake on Citizens United. Next time you find yourself not trusting the government, think about the people to whom many of them are accountable, huge corporations, unions, or even wealthy individuals. Follow the money and find that too much power is wielded by too few. Smell the oligarchy and demand that America remove money from politics. Super PACs may lead to the election of your preferred candidate (or mine), but the outcome of the next election is a much less important issue than the undermining of our freedoms and our nation that come as fewer and fewer of the wealthiest take the reins of power.
Since the Citizens United decision was handed down in early 2010, this year's presidential election marks the first time we are seeing the full scope of what Super PACs are capable of, and the results are scary. Super PACs for each of the major Republican candidates have already spent millions in the primaries bashing each other's skulls. While it makes me happy to see Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb go at each other mercilessly, the amount of money spent on negative advertising is abhorrent. Of course, the President, who is one heckuva fundraiser, hasn't even really gotten his Super PAC up and running yet, perhaps because, "legally," he's not allowed to collaborate with the Super PAC, but really because for the time being he is content to sit back and watch the doofuses beat on each other.
But soon, Obama will unleash his financial firepower, and Americans will be inundated and lambasted with the competing commentary of two men who want to be president. Never mind that Super PACs are not allowed to work in conjunction with the official campaign - we all know that's a joke - and never mind that there are other channels through which both Democrats and Republicans have, can, and will raise money, the Super PAC has changed the game of politics.
Lamentably, all Americans are now going to suffer. Perhaps Mitt Romney's huge war chest will allow him to oust Obama in November and some will be happy. Perhaps Obama's even larger war chest will allow him to defeat Romney and I will be happy. It doesn't really matter. When small handfuls of multi-millionaires are writing checks to fund political campaigns, ordinary Americans, the yous and mes of the world, lose.
One of the biggest problems, if not the biggest problem with our "democracy" is that power is not wielded by we the people, it is wielded by past presidents and historical figures, mostly Benjamin Franklin. I may have a voice and a vote, but my voice is drowned out by the barrage of television ads paid for by special interests groups, and there is a special interest group for almost everything. My elected officials are less beholden to me than they are to the moneyed interests that too often buy the elections for them. I may have a vote, but I don't have a million dollars, and across the political spectrum, most politicians are far more interested in those millions that I don't have than the one vote I do have.
The Supreme Court made a huge mistake on Citizens United. Next time you find yourself not trusting the government, think about the people to whom many of them are accountable, huge corporations, unions, or even wealthy individuals. Follow the money and find that too much power is wielded by too few. Smell the oligarchy and demand that America remove money from politics. Super PACs may lead to the election of your preferred candidate (or mine), but the outcome of the next election is a much less important issue than the undermining of our freedoms and our nation that come as fewer and fewer of the wealthiest take the reins of power.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Two Things I Do Not Want
A nuclear-armed Iran, and a war in Iran. I could do without both of those. Unfortunately for me, it seems like we are moving towards both. I have absolutely no faith that the loony, Holocaust-denying ayatollahs won't do something crazy. General Dempsey thinks the ayatollahs are rational. I'm less sure. While I don't think they will launch a nuclear strike on Israel, a nuclear-armed Iran makes nuclear-armed terrorist groups much more likely.
While I have no faith in the ayatollahs, I do have faith in the president. If sanctions don't work I am confident Obama will take the necessary steps to ensure that Iran does not obtain a bomb. But more importantly, I am confident that President Obama will do everything in his power to make sure we do not have to use military force to prevent the Iranian development of nuclear weapons.
The problem with Iran, other than the Iranian leadership, is actually Russia and China. Two countries that are similarly the problem with Syria. China, at least, has a legitimate need for Iranian oil. This does not excuse their refusal to back sanctions; Chinese leadership has placed economic concerns over international well-being and their own national security. Russian leadership is much more callous. Swamped by his own issues at home, Vladimir Putin shamelessly supports autocracy in Syria and theocratic autocracy in Iran to give legitimacy to his own oppressive government in Russia.
President Obama's strategy should be focused on getting China to agree to sanctions that would permanently cripple Iran's economy and force them to the negotiating table. The Chinese demand for oil is insatiable, but it does not have to come from Iran. The President should approve the Keystone pipeline and continue to enact policies that will make America more of an energy exporter. He should also work with other Middle Eastern allies to ensure that any disruption in China's oil supply from Iran is made up for by increased importation from Saudi Arabia, and now, perhaps Libya and Iraq as well.
Coupled with sanctions from the EU that are already squeezing Iran's economy, these steps would help get the Chinese behind tough sanctions that would force Iran to negotiate. Russian cynicism may be insurmountable, but Chinese economic concerns can be addressed, perhaps even in a manner that helps spark our own economic recovery.
A nuclear Iran is threat to the entire world, and the United States should make sure that Iran's nuclear dreams never come to fruition. Working diplomatically and economically with China in that endeavor would have other benefits as well. While President Obama is right to say that the use of military force is and will always be on the table, he is also right to pursue other effective and less costly avenues to derail Iran's nuclear ambitions.
While I have no faith in the ayatollahs, I do have faith in the president. If sanctions don't work I am confident Obama will take the necessary steps to ensure that Iran does not obtain a bomb. But more importantly, I am confident that President Obama will do everything in his power to make sure we do not have to use military force to prevent the Iranian development of nuclear weapons.
The problem with Iran, other than the Iranian leadership, is actually Russia and China. Two countries that are similarly the problem with Syria. China, at least, has a legitimate need for Iranian oil. This does not excuse their refusal to back sanctions; Chinese leadership has placed economic concerns over international well-being and their own national security. Russian leadership is much more callous. Swamped by his own issues at home, Vladimir Putin shamelessly supports autocracy in Syria and theocratic autocracy in Iran to give legitimacy to his own oppressive government in Russia.
President Obama's strategy should be focused on getting China to agree to sanctions that would permanently cripple Iran's economy and force them to the negotiating table. The Chinese demand for oil is insatiable, but it does not have to come from Iran. The President should approve the Keystone pipeline and continue to enact policies that will make America more of an energy exporter. He should also work with other Middle Eastern allies to ensure that any disruption in China's oil supply from Iran is made up for by increased importation from Saudi Arabia, and now, perhaps Libya and Iraq as well.
Coupled with sanctions from the EU that are already squeezing Iran's economy, these steps would help get the Chinese behind tough sanctions that would force Iran to negotiate. Russian cynicism may be insurmountable, but Chinese economic concerns can be addressed, perhaps even in a manner that helps spark our own economic recovery.
A nuclear Iran is threat to the entire world, and the United States should make sure that Iran's nuclear dreams never come to fruition. Working diplomatically and economically with China in that endeavor would have other benefits as well. While President Obama is right to say that the use of military force is and will always be on the table, he is also right to pursue other effective and less costly avenues to derail Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Moon Basing
So I've mentioned Newt Gingrich's moon base in a few previous posts, and I think it's time that I give it a blog of its own.
In the past I've said that the moon base is Newt's only good idea. That's actually not true, Newt has a pretty good immigration plan. It's not a great plan, but it's a plan, and just having one already puts Newt ahead of the Republican pack, most of whom just peddle xenophobia and talk about walls.
But back to the moon base. I'm only partially serious when I say that I think the moon base is a good idea, but it certainly isn't a bad one. The rest of the Republican party wants to set us back decades if not centuries, but Newt is looking forward. It can sometimes be depressing to know that you live in the greatest country in the world, but hear our politicians - on both sides of the aisle - talking about all the things we cannot do, what we cannot afford, what we cannot or will not attempt.
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard." JFK's challenge galvanized the nation and pushed us to do something difficult, but something of which we should be extraordinarily proud, and something that benefitted us in so many ways. Who is issuing this challenge now? Who is spurring us forward? Lost in all the debate about our domestic problems is the spirit of the American pioneer that has been a part of this country's collective psyche since before we were a country.
A problem? Let's fix it. A question? Let's answer it. A new frontier to be explored and discovered? Let's go there. We always have and we always will, but it helps to have a leader who is willing to suggest and encourage brave ideas. Just because we have problems to solve here doesn't mean that we should stop exploring the unknown.
Newt's moon base is a tangible idea, not unlike putting a man on the moon. It is something that we can work towards. Perhaps the moon base isn't the best manifestation of where our energy should be focused, but rather than belittling the idea, we should suggest alternatives. America should be striving to put a man on Mars. America should be pushing the boundaries of space exploration and of deep sea exploration and of exploration in any and every field in which there is more to learn. That isn't just being American, that is being human.
America is the world's leader, and part of the responsibility that comes along with that is exploring the unknown and pushing the boundaries of our knowledge. We know what we can do, let's try something harder. If we do, we'll find we can do that too.
In the past I've said that the moon base is Newt's only good idea. That's actually not true, Newt has a pretty good immigration plan. It's not a great plan, but it's a plan, and just having one already puts Newt ahead of the Republican pack, most of whom just peddle xenophobia and talk about walls.
But back to the moon base. I'm only partially serious when I say that I think the moon base is a good idea, but it certainly isn't a bad one. The rest of the Republican party wants to set us back decades if not centuries, but Newt is looking forward. It can sometimes be depressing to know that you live in the greatest country in the world, but hear our politicians - on both sides of the aisle - talking about all the things we cannot do, what we cannot afford, what we cannot or will not attempt.
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard." JFK's challenge galvanized the nation and pushed us to do something difficult, but something of which we should be extraordinarily proud, and something that benefitted us in so many ways. Who is issuing this challenge now? Who is spurring us forward? Lost in all the debate about our domestic problems is the spirit of the American pioneer that has been a part of this country's collective psyche since before we were a country.
A problem? Let's fix it. A question? Let's answer it. A new frontier to be explored and discovered? Let's go there. We always have and we always will, but it helps to have a leader who is willing to suggest and encourage brave ideas. Just because we have problems to solve here doesn't mean that we should stop exploring the unknown.
Newt's moon base is a tangible idea, not unlike putting a man on the moon. It is something that we can work towards. Perhaps the moon base isn't the best manifestation of where our energy should be focused, but rather than belittling the idea, we should suggest alternatives. America should be striving to put a man on Mars. America should be pushing the boundaries of space exploration and of deep sea exploration and of exploration in any and every field in which there is more to learn. That isn't just being American, that is being human.
America is the world's leader, and part of the responsibility that comes along with that is exploring the unknown and pushing the boundaries of our knowledge. We know what we can do, let's try something harder. If we do, we'll find we can do that too.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Abortion and the Future of America
Just a few weeks ago it seemed like people thought the American economy needed fixing. We we having debates - albeit silly ones - about deficit reduction, entitlement spending, and taxes. Although one side was offering a forward-looking vision and the other was rehashing old and worn out ideas, there was still some value to the debate.
Now, either the economy has recovered or we have forgotten it was ever in peril. Now we have shifted the debate on to the important topics, those that will really shape the future: women's health and reproductive issues.
If you were under the impression that women should be able to make decisions about their bodies, or if you think that women should have access to adequate healthcare you are sorely mistaken. In fact, women's health issues should be determined by panels of old men none of whom have any experience with women's health.
Republican's bizarre war against women's health, women's rights, and sex has become a hot topic in the last few weeks. Most recently, Rush Limbaugh had the audacity to call a college student a slut because she was campaigning for her collegiate insurance to cover contraceptives. The irony of this is that Rush Limbaugh is on wife number four, I'm pretty sure that means at least one of the following:
A) Rush Limbaugh is also a slut
B) Rush Limbaugh has no credibility to be talking about conservative social issues
C) Rush Limbaugh doesn't want others to have sex because he is literally a fat ass and is certainly not having any himself despite having been married four times
As I typed those it occurred to me that the correct answer is of course choice D) All of the above.
But I'm not here to slam Rush Limbaugh, it's an activity that is neither difficult nor productive. I am here to ponder, again, the backwards thinking, hypocrisy, and level of disconnect of the Republican party. The Republican view on women's health is not unlike the Republican view on a host of other social issues: puritanical and backwards. The problem with America is that our women have gotten out of line. They want things like "rights" and "opportunities" and "jobs." Yeah right, back to kitchen with you. This country would be much better off if we let old white men in Washington DC determine what is best for women. If we can just ban abortion then we'll be able to strip away other rights like voting and driving. It won't be long before American women are on the same playing field as Saudi women, and we all know that if we could just be more like Saudi Arabia we could regain the former glory that Republicans are always grasping for willy nilly.
Letting old men determine what is best for American women doesn't just fulfill criterion one - backwardness - of the agenda, it is also another glaring example of Republican hypocrisy. Republicans after all, hate big government. They can't stand it. Republicans want to chop, chop, chop away at the size of government until all that is left of it are the laws telling us what we are not allowed to do: burn flags; have abortions; give equal rights to women, gays, or other minorities; the list could go on and on indefinitely. Yes, Republicans have no need for government except to use it as a tool of oppression.
Finally, of course, we wouldn't be talking about Republicans without mentioning social disconnect. After all, there are more women than men in America, and while not all women are in favor of abortion rights and women's health, many are, and most men and women that I know are strongly in favor of sex. The assault on sex really isn't going to win many people over to the conservative cause. I don't have figures, but according to exit polls, sex is popular. Furthermore, even if most Americans were up in arms about women's ability to have adequate healthcare or abortion, the economy is the paramount concern of most people. Other issues that need to be addressed include: education; energy independence; a nuclear Iran; the rise of China; the national debt; entitlement reform; and immigration reform. Sex doesn't really need fixing. Unlike some things, it has worked well for eons.
Abortion rights are clearly linked to America's future. After all, if we outlaw abortion, cut entitlement and education spending, and repeal the healthcare law we will have taken the first crucial steps in creating the American proletariat and making Communism a real threat again. Once that happens, all the Republican rhetoric about the threat of socialism won't just be empty scare talk.
Now if only they had some potential solutions about the real issues.
Now, either the economy has recovered or we have forgotten it was ever in peril. Now we have shifted the debate on to the important topics, those that will really shape the future: women's health and reproductive issues.
If you were under the impression that women should be able to make decisions about their bodies, or if you think that women should have access to adequate healthcare you are sorely mistaken. In fact, women's health issues should be determined by panels of old men none of whom have any experience with women's health.
Republican's bizarre war against women's health, women's rights, and sex has become a hot topic in the last few weeks. Most recently, Rush Limbaugh had the audacity to call a college student a slut because she was campaigning for her collegiate insurance to cover contraceptives. The irony of this is that Rush Limbaugh is on wife number four, I'm pretty sure that means at least one of the following:
A) Rush Limbaugh is also a slut
B) Rush Limbaugh has no credibility to be talking about conservative social issues
C) Rush Limbaugh doesn't want others to have sex because he is literally a fat ass and is certainly not having any himself despite having been married four times
As I typed those it occurred to me that the correct answer is of course choice D) All of the above.
But I'm not here to slam Rush Limbaugh, it's an activity that is neither difficult nor productive. I am here to ponder, again, the backwards thinking, hypocrisy, and level of disconnect of the Republican party. The Republican view on women's health is not unlike the Republican view on a host of other social issues: puritanical and backwards. The problem with America is that our women have gotten out of line. They want things like "rights" and "opportunities" and "jobs." Yeah right, back to kitchen with you. This country would be much better off if we let old white men in Washington DC determine what is best for women. If we can just ban abortion then we'll be able to strip away other rights like voting and driving. It won't be long before American women are on the same playing field as Saudi women, and we all know that if we could just be more like Saudi Arabia we could regain the former glory that Republicans are always grasping for willy nilly.
Letting old men determine what is best for American women doesn't just fulfill criterion one - backwardness - of the agenda, it is also another glaring example of Republican hypocrisy. Republicans after all, hate big government. They can't stand it. Republicans want to chop, chop, chop away at the size of government until all that is left of it are the laws telling us what we are not allowed to do: burn flags; have abortions; give equal rights to women, gays, or other minorities; the list could go on and on indefinitely. Yes, Republicans have no need for government except to use it as a tool of oppression.
Finally, of course, we wouldn't be talking about Republicans without mentioning social disconnect. After all, there are more women than men in America, and while not all women are in favor of abortion rights and women's health, many are, and most men and women that I know are strongly in favor of sex. The assault on sex really isn't going to win many people over to the conservative cause. I don't have figures, but according to exit polls, sex is popular. Furthermore, even if most Americans were up in arms about women's ability to have adequate healthcare or abortion, the economy is the paramount concern of most people. Other issues that need to be addressed include: education; energy independence; a nuclear Iran; the rise of China; the national debt; entitlement reform; and immigration reform. Sex doesn't really need fixing. Unlike some things, it has worked well for eons.
Abortion rights are clearly linked to America's future. After all, if we outlaw abortion, cut entitlement and education spending, and repeal the healthcare law we will have taken the first crucial steps in creating the American proletariat and making Communism a real threat again. Once that happens, all the Republican rhetoric about the threat of socialism won't just be empty scare talk.
Now if only they had some potential solutions about the real issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)