In the aftermath of the recent Greg Norman/Chris Evert marital separation, an article quoted a 'friend' of the couple. The friend commented that both Greg and Chris are narcissists and there is really only room for one in a marriage. Where would we be without our friends?
After watching six hours of health care hell on Thursday, I realized that the 'friend' may have some special insight into doomed relationships. The health care summit meeting was a rehearsal dinner for a bipartisan wedding that the republican and democratic narcissists were hell-bent to sabotage.
President Obama is not one to shoot himself in the foot. Yet, he chose to unveil his own health care proposal just three days prior to this meeting and a year into the debate. Facing a potential impasse with Democrats in the House, the Presidents alternative expensed out at 950 billion dollars, exceeding the current House bill by 150 billion dollars. This package is the antithesis of compromise and a bad strategy for appealing to Republicans. The president seemed intent on taunting the opposition, not romancing them.
On Thursday, his performance was calculated and his demeanor condescending. His opening remarks were reminiscent of his State of the Union speech, when he adopted the tone of a father expressing profound disappointment with his children. His impatience was palpable and his chiding of John McCain was especially awkward given the difference in their ages. The president came off as thin-skinned and disrespectful.
Whe Mr. Obama reminded Senator McConnell that he was the president (accounting for the disparity in minutes allotted to each side), he degraded the the advantage that is inherently his. It's the president's show and he makes the rules. Everyone knows it and no one disputes it. But no one talks about the elephant in the room, especially the elephant. Tactically, the president should have left the moderating to someone else.
The president also surrounded himself with Team Narcissus, Senator Reid whose arrogance is really grating. Speaker Pelosi, whose arrogance is unwarranted and Vice-President Biden, whose self-reverence is incomprehensible. Some Democrats like Secretary Sebelius acquitted themselves well but the damage was already done.
Given all the social missteps by the Democrats, you would think the Republicans would just shut up and collect a moral victory. Guess again. Boehner, McConnell and McCain all had mildly petulant moments. One could argue that the Republicans won the spin cycle, but only if you think that whiny trumps snarky.
Surprisingly, both the President and the Republicans demonstrated a command of the issues that far exceeded the public's expectations. The president was prepared and articulate, especially when addressing insurance purchases across state lines. Dr. Tom Coburn was good and Paul Ryan was informed, cogent and prepared. Unfortunately, their good moments were dwarfed by the self-absorption and pettiness that permeate political events.
Politicians are quick to cite poll results to enlist support for everything from insurance reform to capital punishment. The voters want to see some adults in the room. I don't need a poll to know that.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
More priciple, less strategy
Posted by Saint Somebody on Tuesday, February 02, 2010 4:58:18 PM
Sixty years ago Eric Hoffer observed that the frustrated individual desires freedom from responsibility more than freedom from restraint. He further noted "the freedom the masses crave is not the freedom of self-expression and self -realization but freedom from the intolerable burden of an autonomous existence."
Some of us fail by dint of our own efforts. Politicians comfort us by preaching that the playing field is tilted against us and government needs to level it. Hence, change. The Democrat's message suggests the field is severely tilted, handicapping many of us. This message is hard to carry from election to election, but it certainly worked in the last one.
The Republicans have increasingly committed to the courageous strategy of riding both horses. They ride the 'freedom from restraint' horse during campaigns and the 'freedom from responsibility' horse while governing. It is time for the Republicans to place a bet; a principled wager, not a calculated one. You can bet both black and red on each and every spin of the roulette wheel. You never win but occasionally green comes up and you lose both bets. This is how Republicans achieved the electoral hat trick in 2008.
Republicans can continue the strategy of seeking a soft landing for many economic hardships but there are political consequences attached. No matter what direction Republicans take, Democrats will always be riding to their left. They will always endorse an even softer landing and they will always appear more empathetic in the process.
The 'freedom from restraint' philosophy takes some stomach. It is necessary to endorse success without promoting or enabling larceny. It is both appropriate and advisable to address systemic financial hardships, but you must do so without supporting a massive income redistribution that portrays 80 percent of the voters as the helpless victims of the other 20 percent. Most importantly, it recognizes that power is a responsibility, not a campaign tool for upcoming elections. Are Republicans here yet? I doubt it.
The Democrats don't vacillate much. They have chosen a path and they stick to it. However, they would do better to focus more attention on wealth creation and less on how the creators spend it. The Democrats run the risk of judging all the voters to be either selfish or childlike and incapable. This type of paternalism gets tiresome and change might once again be in the offing.
Sixty years ago Eric Hoffer observed that the frustrated individual desires freedom from responsibility more than freedom from restraint. He further noted "the freedom the masses crave is not the freedom of self-expression and self -realization but freedom from the intolerable burden of an autonomous existence."
Some of us fail by dint of our own efforts. Politicians comfort us by preaching that the playing field is tilted against us and government needs to level it. Hence, change. The Democrat's message suggests the field is severely tilted, handicapping many of us. This message is hard to carry from election to election, but it certainly worked in the last one.
The Republicans have increasingly committed to the courageous strategy of riding both horses. They ride the 'freedom from restraint' horse during campaigns and the 'freedom from responsibility' horse while governing. It is time for the Republicans to place a bet; a principled wager, not a calculated one. You can bet both black and red on each and every spin of the roulette wheel. You never win but occasionally green comes up and you lose both bets. This is how Republicans achieved the electoral hat trick in 2008.
Republicans can continue the strategy of seeking a soft landing for many economic hardships but there are political consequences attached. No matter what direction Republicans take, Democrats will always be riding to their left. They will always endorse an even softer landing and they will always appear more empathetic in the process.
The 'freedom from restraint' philosophy takes some stomach. It is necessary to endorse success without promoting or enabling larceny. It is both appropriate and advisable to address systemic financial hardships, but you must do so without supporting a massive income redistribution that portrays 80 percent of the voters as the helpless victims of the other 20 percent. Most importantly, it recognizes that power is a responsibility, not a campaign tool for upcoming elections. Are Republicans here yet? I doubt it.
The Democrats don't vacillate much. They have chosen a path and they stick to it. However, they would do better to focus more attention on wealth creation and less on how the creators spend it. The Democrats run the risk of judging all the voters to be either selfish or childlike and incapable. This type of paternalism gets tiresome and change might once again be in the offing.
Media style impartiality
Posted by Saint Somebody on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 1:33:17 AM
A recent Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial surmised that Senator Reid's comments regarding President Obama's electoral prospects were no more than a clumsy statement made in support of Mr. Obama. That statement is probably accurate as I'm sure most Americans thought, both then and now, that the president has broader appeal than, say, Jesse Jackson. This is true despite the minimal differences in their policy preferences.
The editorial goes on to differentiate this situation from a remark Senator Lott made in praise of Strom Thurmond. The editorial suggests that the Lott remark was more offensive than the aforementioned because it was widely interpreted as an endorsement of the segregationist inclinations that inspired Thurmond's 1948 presidential election campaign.
The Lott remarks were made at a birthday celebration for Senator Thurmond in 2002. No one seriously thought that Lott was making public, praise for racial segregation, nor do I think that either the public or the media believed Lott to be that stupid. The remarks were not widely interpreted by the public as offensive, they were widely portrayed by the media as offensive. Neither Reid nor Lott should stray far from a Teleprompter, but the shame here belongs to the media.
This brings us to a recent editorial by David Brooks. David Brooks strikes me as a genuinely nice man and an interesting analyst. That said, his column from January 4, 2010 is a masterpiece of media self-indulgence. The singular biases of the columnist are repeatedly cast as the opinions of a movement or society.
Among Brook's observations is a that the Tea party phenomenon reflects a growing anti-intellectual bias. The educated classes believe in global warming, so the public is skeptical.. The educated classes support abortion, internationalism and gun control so the public opposes them. He doesn't say that the educated classes believe in global warming and the public holds a different view. He infers that the opposition is not a failure of evidence or persuasion, but a reflexive and emotional tantrum on the part of the protesters.
He further notes that the tea party movement is famous mostly for its flamboyant fringe. A true statement, but why is that? The idea that government has broken free from constitutional limits could foster a serious debate but the media interest is focused on the flamboyant, inarticulate fringe. Why? Who created the interest in the fringe element?
Later on, Brooks states "The Obama administration is premised on the conviction that pragmatic federal leaders with professional expertise should have the power to solve the nation's problems." Opposition is credited to a lack of faith in centralized expertise and the political class generally. There is so much wrong with this statement, it is hard to know where to start. Suffice it to say, the public would be less antagonistic to the Obama administration if it paid more attention to the powers it does have and less to the powers it assumes. The lack of faith in centralized expertise is not a societal character flaw; it is a product of the public's ongoing experience with government.
The demonstrated skepticism toward centralized expertise reflects the voters doubts about the pragmatism of federal leaders, the quality of 'professional' expertise and their willingness to be constrained by the law.
Brooks concludes by noting that American history is often driven by passionate outsiders who force their way into the spotlight of American life. On this point, we agree, although I doubt that Brooks includes himself and his colleagues among them.
A recent Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial surmised that Senator Reid's comments regarding President Obama's electoral prospects were no more than a clumsy statement made in support of Mr. Obama. That statement is probably accurate as I'm sure most Americans thought, both then and now, that the president has broader appeal than, say, Jesse Jackson. This is true despite the minimal differences in their policy preferences.
The editorial goes on to differentiate this situation from a remark Senator Lott made in praise of Strom Thurmond. The editorial suggests that the Lott remark was more offensive than the aforementioned because it was widely interpreted as an endorsement of the segregationist inclinations that inspired Thurmond's 1948 presidential election campaign.
The Lott remarks were made at a birthday celebration for Senator Thurmond in 2002. No one seriously thought that Lott was making public, praise for racial segregation, nor do I think that either the public or the media believed Lott to be that stupid. The remarks were not widely interpreted by the public as offensive, they were widely portrayed by the media as offensive. Neither Reid nor Lott should stray far from a Teleprompter, but the shame here belongs to the media.
This brings us to a recent editorial by David Brooks. David Brooks strikes me as a genuinely nice man and an interesting analyst. That said, his column from January 4, 2010 is a masterpiece of media self-indulgence. The singular biases of the columnist are repeatedly cast as the opinions of a movement or society.
Among Brook's observations is a that the Tea party phenomenon reflects a growing anti-intellectual bias. The educated classes believe in global warming, so the public is skeptical.. The educated classes support abortion, internationalism and gun control so the public opposes them. He doesn't say that the educated classes believe in global warming and the public holds a different view. He infers that the opposition is not a failure of evidence or persuasion, but a reflexive and emotional tantrum on the part of the protesters.
He further notes that the tea party movement is famous mostly for its flamboyant fringe. A true statement, but why is that? The idea that government has broken free from constitutional limits could foster a serious debate but the media interest is focused on the flamboyant, inarticulate fringe. Why? Who created the interest in the fringe element?
Later on, Brooks states "The Obama administration is premised on the conviction that pragmatic federal leaders with professional expertise should have the power to solve the nation's problems." Opposition is credited to a lack of faith in centralized expertise and the political class generally. There is so much wrong with this statement, it is hard to know where to start. Suffice it to say, the public would be less antagonistic to the Obama administration if it paid more attention to the powers it does have and less to the powers it assumes. The lack of faith in centralized expertise is not a societal character flaw; it is a product of the public's ongoing experience with government.
The demonstrated skepticism toward centralized expertise reflects the voters doubts about the pragmatism of federal leaders, the quality of 'professional' expertise and their willingness to be constrained by the law.
Brooks concludes by noting that American history is often driven by passionate outsiders who force their way into the spotlight of American life. On this point, we agree, although I doubt that Brooks includes himself and his colleagues among them.
An overabundance of certainty
Posted by Saint Somebody on Wednesday, January 06, 2010 8:08:50 AM
John Kerry never overcame the ‘ponderous and arrogant’ persona he projected in the 2004 campaign. When a politician is handicapped by his own personality traits, good moments often get clouded over and their impact diminished.
During a presidential debate in 2004, Kerry commented that Bush’s commitment to his Iraq policy should be assessed differently. It is “possible” he noted, “to be certain, but still wrong.” Presidents don't do “I was wrong.” Presidents will deny a mistake and defend the ensuing policy. The heart of damage control is rationaization and presidents are hostage to damage control.
Kerry understood that incumbents reluctantly revisit their thinking after the money has been spent or the lives have been lost. But they never acknowledge the mistake. It is both politically untenable and ego-crushing. At these times, the responsibility shifts to the opposition and the voters.
Even by political standards, Barack Obama possesses an overabundance of certainty. We should consider that carefully as we approach the mid-term elections. If the evidence reveals that the effect of the stimulus package was negligible or detrimental, what is the incumbent's next move? If global warming consensus breaks under the weight of future evidence, will Cap and Trade go away? No. We live in an age of irrevocable mistakes, the age of certain, still wrong, yet undeterred.
In politics, circumspection and humility play like weakness. The back-up plan is never re-assess. It is always double down.
We are sometimes free to indulge the psychological insecurities of politicians. Sometimes the price is too high. Our solvency and security should not be left captive to those who neither can, nor will change direction.
The pendulum is swinging to the political right for now. As we send Republicans back to Washington, listen for that ring of certainty. Ask the indelicate question. Sounds great, but what if you’re wrong?
John Kerry never overcame the ‘ponderous and arrogant’ persona he projected in the 2004 campaign. When a politician is handicapped by his own personality traits, good moments often get clouded over and their impact diminished.
During a presidential debate in 2004, Kerry commented that Bush’s commitment to his Iraq policy should be assessed differently. It is “possible” he noted, “to be certain, but still wrong.” Presidents don't do “I was wrong.” Presidents will deny a mistake and defend the ensuing policy. The heart of damage control is rationaization and presidents are hostage to damage control.
Kerry understood that incumbents reluctantly revisit their thinking after the money has been spent or the lives have been lost. But they never acknowledge the mistake. It is both politically untenable and ego-crushing. At these times, the responsibility shifts to the opposition and the voters.
Even by political standards, Barack Obama possesses an overabundance of certainty. We should consider that carefully as we approach the mid-term elections. If the evidence reveals that the effect of the stimulus package was negligible or detrimental, what is the incumbent's next move? If global warming consensus breaks under the weight of future evidence, will Cap and Trade go away? No. We live in an age of irrevocable mistakes, the age of certain, still wrong, yet undeterred.
In politics, circumspection and humility play like weakness. The back-up plan is never re-assess. It is always double down.
We are sometimes free to indulge the psychological insecurities of politicians. Sometimes the price is too high. Our solvency and security should not be left captive to those who neither can, nor will change direction.
The pendulum is swinging to the political right for now. As we send Republicans back to Washington, listen for that ring of certainty. Ask the indelicate question. Sounds great, but what if you’re wrong?
Scientific point-shaving scandal
Posted by Saint Somebody on Wednesday, December 09, 2009 1:43:45 AM
“But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe that which he does not believe”. Thomas Paine
Paine highlighted a failing of human nature in the “Age of Reason.” He narrowly ascribed that weakness as somehow endemic to religious belief. 'Professing to believe in what one does not' is a calculated, intentional act. (Think Al Gore) It may occur sometimes, in the context of religious belief, but is far more prevalent in other pursuits. Consider the recent revelations about climate researchers and their email correspondence.
Any scientist, when confronted with inconsistent or contradictory data has several avenues of response available. He or she can re-examine his previous conclusions. He might scrutinize the new data to assess its validity; perhaps, design a new study to resolve the conflicts. He could acknowledge the new findings while disputing the conclusions drawn from them. Or he could discredit and distort the new information, suppress its publication and impugn the integrity of the other researchers. Simply put, he could behave like a scientist or a politician.
A scientist can only legitimately seek the correct answer. He can’t conspire to produce a particular result.. The global warming proponents are interested in a single conclusion and it is not,simply, the ego-driven investment of people who don’t like to be contradicted. The financial weight and academic opportunities are dense on the global warming side of the debate. It is more difficult to see what’s in it for the skeptics. Aside from professional vindication, what benefit attaches to being right? Cyclical changes in the makeup of the sun’ is hardly a career-enhancing position to take.
“When a man has so far prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to something he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.” With persuasive objective evidence in hand, most professionals would embrace the opportunity to debate, The global warming proponents don’t want to debate the evidence. They are content to preach to the converted. The behaviors reported this past week are childish by political standards, unimaginable by scientific standards. It is becoming increasingly clear how the global warming ‘consensus’ was achieved. The referees bet on the game. This is scientific point-shaving.
No one wants to be wrong but scientists are bred to confront the possibility. The universe is expanding, not contracting. We swung 180 degrees on that. We once believed that Wonder bread was integral to good health. Wrong again. Far from crippling science, mistakes are part of the process. They reflect reasonable conclusions based on the evidence available at the time.
This debate has real world consequences. An expensive remedy, Cap and Trade, was fashioned in response to the warming scenario. It will be paid for with real money. The money allocated will not be available for other purposes.
It will probably result in additional unemployment.If the remedy of Cap and Trade were to be pursued based on my conclusions, I would need to hear the other voices and answer their arguments. This isn’t just insufficient curiosity. We are making policy, based on the judgments of men “prepared for the commission of every other crime.”
“But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe that which he does not believe”. Thomas Paine
Paine highlighted a failing of human nature in the “Age of Reason.” He narrowly ascribed that weakness as somehow endemic to religious belief. 'Professing to believe in what one does not' is a calculated, intentional act. (Think Al Gore) It may occur sometimes, in the context of religious belief, but is far more prevalent in other pursuits. Consider the recent revelations about climate researchers and their email correspondence.
Any scientist, when confronted with inconsistent or contradictory data has several avenues of response available. He or she can re-examine his previous conclusions. He might scrutinize the new data to assess its validity; perhaps, design a new study to resolve the conflicts. He could acknowledge the new findings while disputing the conclusions drawn from them. Or he could discredit and distort the new information, suppress its publication and impugn the integrity of the other researchers. Simply put, he could behave like a scientist or a politician.
A scientist can only legitimately seek the correct answer. He can’t conspire to produce a particular result.. The global warming proponents are interested in a single conclusion and it is not,simply, the ego-driven investment of people who don’t like to be contradicted. The financial weight and academic opportunities are dense on the global warming side of the debate. It is more difficult to see what’s in it for the skeptics. Aside from professional vindication, what benefit attaches to being right? Cyclical changes in the makeup of the sun’ is hardly a career-enhancing position to take.
“When a man has so far prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to something he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.” With persuasive objective evidence in hand, most professionals would embrace the opportunity to debate, The global warming proponents don’t want to debate the evidence. They are content to preach to the converted. The behaviors reported this past week are childish by political standards, unimaginable by scientific standards. It is becoming increasingly clear how the global warming ‘consensus’ was achieved. The referees bet on the game. This is scientific point-shaving.
No one wants to be wrong but scientists are bred to confront the possibility. The universe is expanding, not contracting. We swung 180 degrees on that. We once believed that Wonder bread was integral to good health. Wrong again. Far from crippling science, mistakes are part of the process. They reflect reasonable conclusions based on the evidence available at the time.
This debate has real world consequences. An expensive remedy, Cap and Trade, was fashioned in response to the warming scenario. It will be paid for with real money. The money allocated will not be available for other purposes.
It will probably result in additional unemployment.If the remedy of Cap and Trade were to be pursued based on my conclusions, I would need to hear the other voices and answer their arguments. This isn’t just insufficient curiosity. We are making policy, based on the judgments of men “prepared for the commission of every other crime.”
Politics,self-esteem and social policy
Posted by Saint Somebody on Saturday, October 31, 2009 4:54:04 PM
We all have private ails. The troublemakers are they who need public cures for their
private ails. Eric Hoffer
Years ago, politicians worked through their self esteem issues just like every one else. They got drunk, fought with their spouses, broke up with their girlfriends, embarrassed themselves publicly and made intemperate remarks around a reporter. Shortly thereafter, they sobered up, took four aspirins, apologized to their loved ones and prepared clarifications of their thoughtless remarks. Humility was, ironically, the cure for low self esteem. The politician kept a low profile and the passing of time restored their self respect.
Today, politicians suffer from a more virulent strain of low self-esteem. They still drink and they still act out. They have exotic mistresses in Argentina or they father children with their videographer. But the troubling moment of humility has been sidestepped. Humility is so inefficient without the “sorry” part. Self esteem issues are now a lifelong affliction, not a passing moment of weakness. It requires daily doses of Prozac or Zoloft, not occasional aspirin.
Nothing pains a politician more than insecurity, the looming thought that they are not essential, perhaps not even relevant. Serious medicine is called for and it comes out in the form of social policy. The environmental catastrophe of global warming will be addressed with the economic catastrophe of Cap and Trade. The federal government takes ownership of private companies and the health care bill is a train without a track. How else can you explain 2,014 pages to stat? The Republicans don’t have enough votes to address their self esteem issues. Their wound will fester until they are once again the majority. Then, watch out.
Low self esteem is a mental health crisis for politicians. It goes into a brief remission following elections, but it haunts them. They undertake big initiatives to quiet the demons, but the urge is never sated.
As of 12/31/08, for the first time, the combined present value of the national debt coupled with the unfunded future obligations accruing to Social Security and Medicare (53 trillion) exceeded household net worth (51.5 trillion). Since that time, the first number has increased and the second number remains well below 2006 levels. Think about that. And we are still talking about more spending.
Grandiose ambition is now therapy and the country can't afford it. Politics is reality television with meaningful consequences. We can’t afford to indulge the actors because of the money involved. Voters need to restore the missing element of humility. When your elected representatives are arrogant and surly, withhold your applause. When financially reckless, withhold your vote.
We all have private ails. The troublemakers are they who need public cures for their
private ails. Eric Hoffer
Years ago, politicians worked through their self esteem issues just like every one else. They got drunk, fought with their spouses, broke up with their girlfriends, embarrassed themselves publicly and made intemperate remarks around a reporter. Shortly thereafter, they sobered up, took four aspirins, apologized to their loved ones and prepared clarifications of their thoughtless remarks. Humility was, ironically, the cure for low self esteem. The politician kept a low profile and the passing of time restored their self respect.
Today, politicians suffer from a more virulent strain of low self-esteem. They still drink and they still act out. They have exotic mistresses in Argentina or they father children with their videographer. But the troubling moment of humility has been sidestepped. Humility is so inefficient without the “sorry” part. Self esteem issues are now a lifelong affliction, not a passing moment of weakness. It requires daily doses of Prozac or Zoloft, not occasional aspirin.
Nothing pains a politician more than insecurity, the looming thought that they are not essential, perhaps not even relevant. Serious medicine is called for and it comes out in the form of social policy. The environmental catastrophe of global warming will be addressed with the economic catastrophe of Cap and Trade. The federal government takes ownership of private companies and the health care bill is a train without a track. How else can you explain 2,014 pages to stat? The Republicans don’t have enough votes to address their self esteem issues. Their wound will fester until they are once again the majority. Then, watch out.
Low self esteem is a mental health crisis for politicians. It goes into a brief remission following elections, but it haunts them. They undertake big initiatives to quiet the demons, but the urge is never sated.
As of 12/31/08, for the first time, the combined present value of the national debt coupled with the unfunded future obligations accruing to Social Security and Medicare (53 trillion) exceeded household net worth (51.5 trillion). Since that time, the first number has increased and the second number remains well below 2006 levels. Think about that. And we are still talking about more spending.
Grandiose ambition is now therapy and the country can't afford it. Politics is reality television with meaningful consequences. We can’t afford to indulge the actors because of the money involved. Voters need to restore the missing element of humility. When your elected representatives are arrogant and surly, withhold your applause. When financially reckless, withhold your vote.
Thatchers, question, Republicans dilemma?
Posted by Saint Somebody on Friday, October 09, 2009 4:09:41 PM
The Wall Street Journal ran the following excerpt from a speech that Margaret Thatcher gave in 1981.
To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something, in which, no one believes but to which no one objects - the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great issue would have been fought and won under the banner of “I stand for consensus.” October 6, 2009 Notables and quotables
This statement lays out the dilemma facing Republicans on healthcare. On the very same day the preceding appeared, Bob Dole counseled Republicans to seek consensus, to get on board with the inevitable passage of some bill. In short, to be on the right side of the politics.
I have considerable respect for Bob Dole, but he has it completely wrong. The President needs a bill, any bill. It provides a platform from which further expansion can be fashioned. Given Mr. Obama’s extra-constitutional proclivities, the reform will then be implemented off the books, so to speak. Czars, regulators and an overly generous reading of executive power will limit the congressional role to appropriations from this point forward.
This bill will provide the president his “Lincoln logs.” He will build the house later on, away from the scrutiny and troublesome oversight.
This reform is a hodgepodge of ill-conceived strategies thrown together almost randomly. As Thatcher pointed out, there are issues that need to “solved.” A small sample of those follows.
** Guaranteeing affordable coverage without exceptions for past and pre-existing conditions can only be paid for by raising the premiums of those with better medical histories and lower foreseeable risks. There is no money in the pantry to finance this.
** The inclusion of a public option at a cost of 8 to 9 percent of gross payroll is an inducement for employers to dump their current coverages.
** A proposal to reduce reimbursements to the top ten percent (measured by the total dollars on care authorized) of physicians who treat Medicare clients is a nice idea that can’t work in the real world. No one wants less money for treating more patients, specifically more very ill patients. You cannot expand access by providing doctors disincentives to see patients.
This bill is not a carefully developed strategy based on a thoughtful analysis of trends, needs and capabilities. The Democrats are correct. Reforms are needed, but they are not ready.
No Republican should vote for this bill. This reform is a catastrophe in the making, combined with some short term political benefits for Democrats. Republicans should do their homework and promise to be there if and when a realistic bill can be presented. If the Democrats insist on passing this bill without any Republican support, Republicans should defer and let them own it.
Words have a pretty short half-life in politics. When the Senate prepares their companion to this bill, be prepared to hear a lot of brave talk from Democrats. "I will not vote for this bill unless" there is a) a public option b) pay as you go provisions c) guaranteed access or d) anything else. Every one will fold as they trade their vote for some custom designed, state-specific provision inserted to solicit their loyalty. The log-rolling is built in, but Republicans can't play this time.
A constituent recently asked a Wisconsin House member if she had read any of the proposed legislation. She told her constituent that she has read the table of contents of one of the bills. This legislation is not ready. The elected representatives are not ready. Again.
The Wall Street Journal ran the following excerpt from a speech that Margaret Thatcher gave in 1981.
To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something, in which, no one believes but to which no one objects - the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great issue would have been fought and won under the banner of “I stand for consensus.” October 6, 2009 Notables and quotables
This statement lays out the dilemma facing Republicans on healthcare. On the very same day the preceding appeared, Bob Dole counseled Republicans to seek consensus, to get on board with the inevitable passage of some bill. In short, to be on the right side of the politics.
I have considerable respect for Bob Dole, but he has it completely wrong. The President needs a bill, any bill. It provides a platform from which further expansion can be fashioned. Given Mr. Obama’s extra-constitutional proclivities, the reform will then be implemented off the books, so to speak. Czars, regulators and an overly generous reading of executive power will limit the congressional role to appropriations from this point forward.
This bill will provide the president his “Lincoln logs.” He will build the house later on, away from the scrutiny and troublesome oversight.
This reform is a hodgepodge of ill-conceived strategies thrown together almost randomly. As Thatcher pointed out, there are issues that need to “solved.” A small sample of those follows.
** Guaranteeing affordable coverage without exceptions for past and pre-existing conditions can only be paid for by raising the premiums of those with better medical histories and lower foreseeable risks. There is no money in the pantry to finance this.
** The inclusion of a public option at a cost of 8 to 9 percent of gross payroll is an inducement for employers to dump their current coverages.
** A proposal to reduce reimbursements to the top ten percent (measured by the total dollars on care authorized) of physicians who treat Medicare clients is a nice idea that can’t work in the real world. No one wants less money for treating more patients, specifically more very ill patients. You cannot expand access by providing doctors disincentives to see patients.
This bill is not a carefully developed strategy based on a thoughtful analysis of trends, needs and capabilities. The Democrats are correct. Reforms are needed, but they are not ready.
No Republican should vote for this bill. This reform is a catastrophe in the making, combined with some short term political benefits for Democrats. Republicans should do their homework and promise to be there if and when a realistic bill can be presented. If the Democrats insist on passing this bill without any Republican support, Republicans should defer and let them own it.
Words have a pretty short half-life in politics. When the Senate prepares their companion to this bill, be prepared to hear a lot of brave talk from Democrats. "I will not vote for this bill unless" there is a) a public option b) pay as you go provisions c) guaranteed access or d) anything else. Every one will fold as they trade their vote for some custom designed, state-specific provision inserted to solicit their loyalty. The log-rolling is built in, but Republicans can't play this time.
A constituent recently asked a Wisconsin House member if she had read any of the proposed legislation. She told her constituent that she has read the table of contents of one of the bills. This legislation is not ready. The elected representatives are not ready. Again.
Republicans, "After the loving"
Posted by Saint Somebody on Sunday, October 25, 2009 4:30:30 PM
" I knew it was time to quit, when it didn't hurt to play bad anymore." A former PGA tour player explained his transition from competitor to private citizen this way. It is poignant and sad, the moment when what was everything, becomes nothing. It is the moment when your expectations die.
Some Republican lawmakers may face these transition-to-private-citizen moments before the next election cycle. It is time to quit when, it doesn't hurt to be a hypocrite anymore.
Republican hearts are all aflutter now that disenchantment with hope and change is spreading. It's time to dust off the 'small government, fiscal discipline' mantras that live in republican hearts from the primary to general election every couple years. This is the valentine that Republicans send to voters. Then, off to Washington, where 'small government, fiscal discipline' is so yesterday.
Washington is San Padre island for Republicans. The Democrats don't have a curfew, they have a credit card, a platinum card actually and a printing press. All Republicans have is 'small government, fiscal discipline'. They want to go on spring break, too. When given the opportunity, they do. That is precisely the problem.
Republicans delude themselves if they think that voters regret sending them home in 2008. They went to Washington. They didn't study. The didn't go to church on Sunday and they lied to the folks back home. They spent recklessly.
Obama will have a hard sell to the voters come 2012. But the voters will not reflexively turn back to Republicans. Only a few of us remember Eisenhower. The voters don't trust Republicans and only a select few, Ryan, Bachmann, Dreier.... have any stomach for being Republicans after the electoral loving.
A lot of people would like to vote for a Republican. They are reluctant to do so because they have voted for Republicans. "Relative" fiscal sanity is not going to cut it with voters this time.
" I knew it was time to quit, when it didn't hurt to play bad anymore." A former PGA tour player explained his transition from competitor to private citizen this way. It is poignant and sad, the moment when what was everything, becomes nothing. It is the moment when your expectations die.
Some Republican lawmakers may face these transition-to-private-citizen moments before the next election cycle. It is time to quit when, it doesn't hurt to be a hypocrite anymore.
Republican hearts are all aflutter now that disenchantment with hope and change is spreading. It's time to dust off the 'small government, fiscal discipline' mantras that live in republican hearts from the primary to general election every couple years. This is the valentine that Republicans send to voters. Then, off to Washington, where 'small government, fiscal discipline' is so yesterday.
Washington is San Padre island for Republicans. The Democrats don't have a curfew, they have a credit card, a platinum card actually and a printing press. All Republicans have is 'small government, fiscal discipline'. They want to go on spring break, too. When given the opportunity, they do. That is precisely the problem.
Republicans delude themselves if they think that voters regret sending them home in 2008. They went to Washington. They didn't study. The didn't go to church on Sunday and they lied to the folks back home. They spent recklessly.
Obama will have a hard sell to the voters come 2012. But the voters will not reflexively turn back to Republicans. Only a few of us remember Eisenhower. The voters don't trust Republicans and only a select few, Ryan, Bachmann, Dreier.... have any stomach for being Republicans after the electoral loving.
A lot of people would like to vote for a Republican. They are reluctant to do so because they have voted for Republicans. "Relative" fiscal sanity is not going to cut it with voters this time.
Open letter to Michael Steele
Posted by Saint Somebody on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 8:55:10 PM
Michael Steele spoke recently to the National press club. He made a thoughtful, if somewhat pedestrian, case against the current health care reform package. The usually passionate Mr. Steele had a hard time articulating what voters most want to know “Who are these Republicans and given the chance, what will they do?”
Mr. Steele:
Republicans have presented their opposition to the administration’s health care reform as a choice between government control and the free market. Many voters believe that the “government control” ship has long since sailed and that Republicans helped to launch it.
Republicans have come to be seen as the proponents of a more modest socialism, a less intrusive nanny-state. If elected, they will still intrude in the marketplace, but in a more principled and efficient manner than the Democrats. The Republican alternative will be the party of the 500 billion dollar stimulus package, mini bailouts and reluctant takeovers.
Politics has devolved into talking points, key words and purposeful ambiguity. It really is less complicated than that. What do you believe and what will you do if elected? I’ve taken the liberty of preparing some remarks for you. Try them out. I think people could vote for this kind of Republican.
Republicans believe every individual has differing medical and insurance needs. They differ from age-to-age, by occupation, financial circumstance, ethnic and genetic susceptibility and geographic location. Those needs differ not only from person to person but also change throughout one’s own lifetime.
No political body possesses sufficient knowledge or authority to make those personal decisions. Do you need medical insurance more than graduate school, more than a new house or a truck? The Republican proposal will make all physician and hospital services, medications and insurance costs dollar-for-dollar deductible from gross income whether you itemize deductions or not. All medical expenditures will be paid with pre-tax income. Individuals will choose how much risk to take, how much insurance to buy and what services to contract for directly. This is as it should be. Choice, without the trillions.
The special circumstances relating to the chronically ill and the indigent will be debated separately from this reform and will be implemented incrementally. We welcome the President’s embrace of efficiencies and will test them by incorporating them into the Medicare program.
If the voters are kind enough to return us to the majority, we promise to confine our activities to the responsibilities clearly outlined in the constitution. The constitution requires change from time to time, but that responsibility falls to the voters, not the politicians. We promise not to use the vast resources of government to retaliate or to reward. The ninth and tenth amendments will guide our thinking and restrain our ambitions. The Republican party will be humble and serve the citizens, not parent or police them.
Call me. I’d love to talk.
Michael Steele spoke recently to the National press club. He made a thoughtful, if somewhat pedestrian, case against the current health care reform package. The usually passionate Mr. Steele had a hard time articulating what voters most want to know “Who are these Republicans and given the chance, what will they do?”
Mr. Steele:
Republicans have presented their opposition to the administration’s health care reform as a choice between government control and the free market. Many voters believe that the “government control” ship has long since sailed and that Republicans helped to launch it.
Republicans have come to be seen as the proponents of a more modest socialism, a less intrusive nanny-state. If elected, they will still intrude in the marketplace, but in a more principled and efficient manner than the Democrats. The Republican alternative will be the party of the 500 billion dollar stimulus package, mini bailouts and reluctant takeovers.
Politics has devolved into talking points, key words and purposeful ambiguity. It really is less complicated than that. What do you believe and what will you do if elected? I’ve taken the liberty of preparing some remarks for you. Try them out. I think people could vote for this kind of Republican.
Republicans believe every individual has differing medical and insurance needs. They differ from age-to-age, by occupation, financial circumstance, ethnic and genetic susceptibility and geographic location. Those needs differ not only from person to person but also change throughout one’s own lifetime.
No political body possesses sufficient knowledge or authority to make those personal decisions. Do you need medical insurance more than graduate school, more than a new house or a truck? The Republican proposal will make all physician and hospital services, medications and insurance costs dollar-for-dollar deductible from gross income whether you itemize deductions or not. All medical expenditures will be paid with pre-tax income. Individuals will choose how much risk to take, how much insurance to buy and what services to contract for directly. This is as it should be. Choice, without the trillions.
The special circumstances relating to the chronically ill and the indigent will be debated separately from this reform and will be implemented incrementally. We welcome the President’s embrace of efficiencies and will test them by incorporating them into the Medicare program.
If the voters are kind enough to return us to the majority, we promise to confine our activities to the responsibilities clearly outlined in the constitution. The constitution requires change from time to time, but that responsibility falls to the voters, not the politicians. We promise not to use the vast resources of government to retaliate or to reward. The ninth and tenth amendments will guide our thinking and restrain our ambitions. The Republican party will be humble and serve the citizens, not parent or police them.
Call me. I’d love to talk.
Obama: A generation "unburdened"
Posted by Saint Somebody on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 12:24:43 PM
Press coverage often summarizes political remarks in a single sentence or phrase, It fits nicely into a headline. It provides a device for provoking conversation in the tightly scheduled formats of talk radio or cable news. The utility of these key words is clear. But now and then, it is helpful to review the full text of the speech or response that contained those remarks. The most interesting stuff often has less journalistic utility.
President Obama made headlines back in April at Strasbourg with his remarks characterizing America as arrogant. This became the ‘apology tour’ remark or the start of restoring America’s credibility in the world, depending on your viewpoint.
In another section of that speech, the president reveals the genesis of much of his vision. He said, in part, “Each time we find ourselves at a crossroads, paralyzed by worn debates and stale thinking, the old ways of doing things, a new generation rises up and shows the way forward. Because young people are unburdened by the biases or prejudices of the past. This is a great privilege of youth.”
The biases that burden others typically contain an element of experience that colored the thinking of the individuals involved. Naturally, that experience is not always processed fairly and the conclusions drawn from it are not always correct. On the other hand, discounting the experience of previous generations does not make the present generation better informed.
Those, who are privileged to be unburdened by the biases of the past, are hardly without biases of the present. Those biases may be purer, not so muddied by the experiences of their predecessors, but they are hardly absent. The argument Mr. Obama makes, is not that the new generation is without bias, but that it is equipped with superior biases and is more receptive to change, albeit change of their own making.
It is not the development of social conscience that is the problem. It is the persuasion that one has acquired something new, that one is in possession of something that no one ever had before.
The biases and prejudices of the past are sometimes impediments to embracing new thinking. But, new thinking is a bit overrated. Most of it is not that new, much of it having been considered and rightfully discarded by a previous ‘new generation’.
Press coverage often summarizes political remarks in a single sentence or phrase, It fits nicely into a headline. It provides a device for provoking conversation in the tightly scheduled formats of talk radio or cable news. The utility of these key words is clear. But now and then, it is helpful to review the full text of the speech or response that contained those remarks. The most interesting stuff often has less journalistic utility.
President Obama made headlines back in April at Strasbourg with his remarks characterizing America as arrogant. This became the ‘apology tour’ remark or the start of restoring America’s credibility in the world, depending on your viewpoint.
In another section of that speech, the president reveals the genesis of much of his vision. He said, in part, “Each time we find ourselves at a crossroads, paralyzed by worn debates and stale thinking, the old ways of doing things, a new generation rises up and shows the way forward. Because young people are unburdened by the biases or prejudices of the past. This is a great privilege of youth.”
The biases that burden others typically contain an element of experience that colored the thinking of the individuals involved. Naturally, that experience is not always processed fairly and the conclusions drawn from it are not always correct. On the other hand, discounting the experience of previous generations does not make the present generation better informed.
Those, who are privileged to be unburdened by the biases of the past, are hardly without biases of the present. Those biases may be purer, not so muddied by the experiences of their predecessors, but they are hardly absent. The argument Mr. Obama makes, is not that the new generation is without bias, but that it is equipped with superior biases and is more receptive to change, albeit change of their own making.
It is not the development of social conscience that is the problem. It is the persuasion that one has acquired something new, that one is in possession of something that no one ever had before.
The biases and prejudices of the past are sometimes impediments to embracing new thinking. But, new thinking is a bit overrated. Most of it is not that new, much of it having been considered and rightfully discarded by a previous ‘new generation’.
Obama proposes piano moving reforms
There is rumor afloat that the administration is contemplating a comprehensive reform of the piano moving industry. I spent 36 years in this special niche as both an employee and employer. I thought we were sufficiently regulated and this news came as a surprise.
A well-connected political friend has clued me in on some of the details. The government will mandate that movers visually inspect the instrument and the pickup and delivery sites prior to the move and provide the customer with a binding written estimate of the charges. I told my friend that would be silly and wasteful since sufficient information can be gleaned from a phone conversation to accurately quote all but 3-4 percent of all moves. Only those require on-site estimates and usually only at the delivery location.
My friend explained that there will be a net savings from all the information collected and the improved customer relations resulting from the binding estimates. Despite the additional time demands of the regulation and higher short term costs, the reform will generate profit over time.
The piano moving czar has further determined that since a tuning is necessary following every move, it will be included as part of the service. I said “A tuning is not always necessary and why should I be responsible for providing it?” My friend replied that Speaker Pelosi had met with some lobbyists for the piano tuners guild, who assured her that it was necessary and it was simply more efficient to include it as part of the moving service.
“What’s next, Medicaid for indigent piano owners?” I groused. “There is some growing concern that separating owners from their instruments at a time of such economic uncertainty could be detrimental to the pianist’s psyche. If we subsidize the owners during the economic downturn, we could sidestep the consequences of the ensuing, widespread depression." my friend advised me. "A small tax on the surtax on the tax on the top 1 percent of wage earners will assure that no musician loses his piano during the recession. Combined with a small contibution from the medical marjuana people, the crisis can be averted."
“What about my reimbursement?” I inquired. My friend comforted me that while some sacrifices need to be made, I should be grateful that mine were only financial. “Besides, every detail will be addressed in the piano owner bill-of-rights that Congress is hard at work on.”
“Do we need all these regulations, the mandates, the subsidies and a customer’s bill-of-rights, – all this oversight to produce what used to be negotiated by the buyers and sellers of services. I’m skeptical.” My friend sighed knowingly “Relax, it worked for health care, didn’t it?”
A well-connected political friend has clued me in on some of the details. The government will mandate that movers visually inspect the instrument and the pickup and delivery sites prior to the move and provide the customer with a binding written estimate of the charges. I told my friend that would be silly and wasteful since sufficient information can be gleaned from a phone conversation to accurately quote all but 3-4 percent of all moves. Only those require on-site estimates and usually only at the delivery location.
My friend explained that there will be a net savings from all the information collected and the improved customer relations resulting from the binding estimates. Despite the additional time demands of the regulation and higher short term costs, the reform will generate profit over time.
The piano moving czar has further determined that since a tuning is necessary following every move, it will be included as part of the service. I said “A tuning is not always necessary and why should I be responsible for providing it?” My friend replied that Speaker Pelosi had met with some lobbyists for the piano tuners guild, who assured her that it was necessary and it was simply more efficient to include it as part of the moving service.
“What’s next, Medicaid for indigent piano owners?” I groused. “There is some growing concern that separating owners from their instruments at a time of such economic uncertainty could be detrimental to the pianist’s psyche. If we subsidize the owners during the economic downturn, we could sidestep the consequences of the ensuing, widespread depression." my friend advised me. "A small tax on the surtax on the tax on the top 1 percent of wage earners will assure that no musician loses his piano during the recession. Combined with a small contibution from the medical marjuana people, the crisis can be averted."
“What about my reimbursement?” I inquired. My friend comforted me that while some sacrifices need to be made, I should be grateful that mine were only financial. “Besides, every detail will be addressed in the piano owner bill-of-rights that Congress is hard at work on.”
“Do we need all these regulations, the mandates, the subsidies and a customer’s bill-of-rights, – all this oversight to produce what used to be negotiated by the buyers and sellers of services. I’m skeptical.” My friend sighed knowingly “Relax, it worked for health care, didn’t it?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
