Let me get this straight Senator Baucus: So if you’ve been dropped from your insurance company because of a “pre-existing condition” (which can be anything the insurance company decides it is) you can sign up for a “high risk” insurance plan, but you have to be uninsured for six months before you’re allowed to do so? The high risk plan would only cover 65% of your treatment and that’s AFTER the $6000 deductible?
And you’re required to pay for that insurance or pay an “excise tax” of up to $3800 dollars if you make 3 times the Federal Poverty Limit (FPL) ($22,050 for a family of 4 in 2009) ?
I don’t understand. You’re diagnosed with a lethal illness e.g.. Your insurance company determines it was caused by a preexisting condition and therefore drops you. You are *required* to wait six months to sign up for the new “high risk” insurance (and let’s be real- what else are you going to get now?) which will only cover 65% of your treatment after the 6k deductible because you’re *required* to have insurance or be fined?
Nope, stating it another way doesn’t help.
And this is to be administered by the ever so trustworthy private insurance companies?
So Senator –when they said we needed healthcare reform or health insurance reform YOU apparently thought they meant that the insurance companies were shouldering too much of the burden?
This is what is known as getting you coming and (quite literally) going.
Let me put this as simply as possible. Insurance is good. Insurance for a profit is bad.
When an insurance company’s reason for being is to make a profit, by definition they must provide their service at the lowest possible cost, as all other businesses do. If you can do it for less, you can take home more. That’s automatic incentive to not cover sick people and only healthy people. That is the *exact opposite* of what insurance is –that is, a mechanism to spread losses throughout a larger pool of resources.
The Swiss have already figured this out. It is ILLEGAL for private health insurance companies to turn a profit in Switzerland for basic coverage (“Cadillac plans” can make a profit)
Um...is there someone more intelligent there that we might be able to speak to about this?
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
A FEW THOUGHTS ON HEALTHCARE REFORM
By now it’s common knowledge that the latest wave of “protesters” to show up at town hall meetings with Congress members has been proven to be an industry-funded and pundit organized exploitation of the panic and hysteria felt by right wing extremists and other ignoramuses. These “protesters” are overwhelmingly white conservatives, and their consensus (whether their own or the expressed ones of their pundit masters) is predominantly that President Obama is trying to dismantle their America and/or that they want their country back. The “black affairs” correspondent on John Stewart said this last night in jest, but I mean it in all seriousness –That’s exactly what we’re trying to do: dismantle America as they know it.
To clarify, think about what America they’re really (under all the patriotic bullshit) talking about. These are the same people who opposed the Civil Rights Act, the same people who benefited unjustly from the labor of minorities and the poor until labor unions, the same people who opposed aid to the elderly so that they didn’t simply rot after a lifetime of work, and the same people who actually think that the fact that their current skyrocketing healthcare costs have nothing to do with the poor and uninsured resorting to default, ER care, or both.
Do we want to dismantle an America that persists in injustice? Where all are not in fact treated as equal regardless what the documents the founders created say? Where the rights and indeed the lives of the people are dictated by the ledgers of industry? Where the politics of an issue trumps the substance or utility of it? Do we want to dismantle that? You’re goddamned right we do. That’s called progress. That’s called becoming a “more perfect union”. And, newsflash to the idiots –as long as we draw breath that old America is never coming back.
To those who ask “why should I have to pay for healthcare for [the poor, the already sick, the undocumented, etc]?” I say –are you actually stupid enough to think you’re not paying for healthcare for them already?
Let me reintroduce you to one of my Eternal Truths: You can ignore, demean or hate the poor/sick/immigrants/elderly/minorities/disabled/children all you want but you’ll be paying for them somewhere along the line whether you want to or not. Somewhere along the arc of their lives we, that is society, will have to devote resources to their welfare. Somewhere in the time period between and including the medical services rendered post-conception to the disposing of their corpses, we’ll have to pay.
This rule applies to most issues, but follow me as it applies to healthcare: under the current system, people with no health insurance (and even some *with* it) are forced to wait until their health is in dire condition or an emergency arises before they seek treatment. This automatically means that they require MORE treatment and more complex treatment than they would have had if they’d sought treatment sooner. This in turn means that healthcare professionals have to devote more man-hours and more expensive treatments to those with an inability to pay. What do you think happens when the patients eventually default after being presented with the bill? Do the providers and insurance companies keep costs the same or do they spread the loss by raising prices/premiums? If you guessed the latter, give yourself a gold star.
Over time this results in higher premiums, rationing healthcare for those WITH insurance (based on lovely fictions like “preexisting conditions” or “cost/benefit ratio”), and even a greater risk of illness/infection to the healthy population as more people forgo treatment because they can’t afford it, and nonetheless continue to live and circulate among us.
Folks, this is that serious. It’s life or death, and not just for the uninsured, but for all of us.
Social-ism in it’s literal (non political) definition is the idea that benefits to society are valued over Capital –that is, the financial benefits to industry. The opposite is Capital-ism –the idea that money made from/for industry is valued over benefit to society. In that context, healthcare is one of the few areas where your old OP is an out and out Socialist.
Insurance on its own is a great and non-political idea. The idea that the loss suffered by individuals is easier borne over a larger pool of resources is the only logical system in a modern democratic society because of the above “rule”. In other words –since we all will bear the burden in some form of the losses of others, the most efficient and fair way of dealing with them is through the spreading of the risk/loss through the larger population. (“many hands make work light”).
When insurance becomes subject to capitalism however –that is when its rason d’etre becomes to make a profit, the resulting benefit to society is crippled, and in many cases destroyed. Decisions are made not based on what the most equitable and just way to spread the loss is, but whether the reduction in profits is worth it. The result is the current situation in which we find ourselves.
…and still there are those who are allegedly so passionate that we remain on the same course that they’ll shout down or even threaten violence to anyone who dares to try to discuss alternatives. Who are these people? What do they stand to gain from maintaining the status quo?
The Evil vs. Stupid question continues.
To clarify, think about what America they’re really (under all the patriotic bullshit) talking about. These are the same people who opposed the Civil Rights Act, the same people who benefited unjustly from the labor of minorities and the poor until labor unions, the same people who opposed aid to the elderly so that they didn’t simply rot after a lifetime of work, and the same people who actually think that the fact that their current skyrocketing healthcare costs have nothing to do with the poor and uninsured resorting to default, ER care, or both.
Do we want to dismantle an America that persists in injustice? Where all are not in fact treated as equal regardless what the documents the founders created say? Where the rights and indeed the lives of the people are dictated by the ledgers of industry? Where the politics of an issue trumps the substance or utility of it? Do we want to dismantle that? You’re goddamned right we do. That’s called progress. That’s called becoming a “more perfect union”. And, newsflash to the idiots –as long as we draw breath that old America is never coming back.
To those who ask “why should I have to pay for healthcare for [the poor, the already sick, the undocumented, etc]?” I say –are you actually stupid enough to think you’re not paying for healthcare for them already?
Let me reintroduce you to one of my Eternal Truths: You can ignore, demean or hate the poor/sick/immigrants/elderly/minorities/disabled/children all you want but you’ll be paying for them somewhere along the line whether you want to or not. Somewhere along the arc of their lives we, that is society, will have to devote resources to their welfare. Somewhere in the time period between and including the medical services rendered post-conception to the disposing of their corpses, we’ll have to pay.
This rule applies to most issues, but follow me as it applies to healthcare: under the current system, people with no health insurance (and even some *with* it) are forced to wait until their health is in dire condition or an emergency arises before they seek treatment. This automatically means that they require MORE treatment and more complex treatment than they would have had if they’d sought treatment sooner. This in turn means that healthcare professionals have to devote more man-hours and more expensive treatments to those with an inability to pay. What do you think happens when the patients eventually default after being presented with the bill? Do the providers and insurance companies keep costs the same or do they spread the loss by raising prices/premiums? If you guessed the latter, give yourself a gold star.
Over time this results in higher premiums, rationing healthcare for those WITH insurance (based on lovely fictions like “preexisting conditions” or “cost/benefit ratio”), and even a greater risk of illness/infection to the healthy population as more people forgo treatment because they can’t afford it, and nonetheless continue to live and circulate among us.
Folks, this is that serious. It’s life or death, and not just for the uninsured, but for all of us.
Social-ism in it’s literal (non political) definition is the idea that benefits to society are valued over Capital –that is, the financial benefits to industry. The opposite is Capital-ism –the idea that money made from/for industry is valued over benefit to society. In that context, healthcare is one of the few areas where your old OP is an out and out Socialist.
Insurance on its own is a great and non-political idea. The idea that the loss suffered by individuals is easier borne over a larger pool of resources is the only logical system in a modern democratic society because of the above “rule”. In other words –since we all will bear the burden in some form of the losses of others, the most efficient and fair way of dealing with them is through the spreading of the risk/loss through the larger population. (“many hands make work light”).
When insurance becomes subject to capitalism however –that is when its rason d’etre becomes to make a profit, the resulting benefit to society is crippled, and in many cases destroyed. Decisions are made not based on what the most equitable and just way to spread the loss is, but whether the reduction in profits is worth it. The result is the current situation in which we find ourselves.
…and still there are those who are allegedly so passionate that we remain on the same course that they’ll shout down or even threaten violence to anyone who dares to try to discuss alternatives. Who are these people? What do they stand to gain from maintaining the status quo?
The Evil vs. Stupid question continues.
Friday, June 12, 2009
EXAM CRAMMING
A friend is studying for her US citizenship exam. Ever the gentleman, I offered a few nuggets of wisdom gleaned from the last 8 years to help her understanding of the current United States:
1. it's OK to torture people to try to get them to confess to connections that don't exist.
2. the First Amendment only applies to Republicans -all others must stay in their designated "free-speech zones"
3. Government is BAAAAD! Therefore the only people we should hire to do the actual governing should be completely incapable of doing it -thus proving that Government is BAAAD!4. The United States Constitution is an inviolable and sacred document...unless you're reeeeeallly scared.
5. IOKIYAR (A.K.A. the 28th Amendment).
6.If a Republican president does it, it's privileged. If a Democratic president does it, it's criminal.
7. Individual liberties are nice, but are trumped by the "free market".
And finally:
8. It is your patriotic duty to question the actions of your government and demand accountability...unless you're a Democrat, or the actions in question happened more than 6 months ago.
Class dismissed.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
BREAKING THE CODE
Hoo Boy! The code-words are flying around DC and the cable news channels like a food fight in a frat-house!
The nomination of Sonia (even her name is code –more below) Sotomayor to the SCOTUS has all the GOPosaurs in high lingo mode cranking out the wink-winks to their troglodyte base so they’ll know SHE’S BAAAAAAD!
As a public service to the more educated I, your humble scribe, have compiled a (by no means complete) list of phrases you’ll hear in the coming nomination “battle” and their TRUE meanings.
I use the term “battle” loosely, because it’s an all but foregone conclusion she’ll be confirmed, as enough Repubs have said they’ll vote for her that she’ll likely get 70 or so votes, and even if they vote in lock-step the seating of Al Franken will have given the Dems a 60-vote lock by then. The real purpose of these phrases (and indeed the entire fight) are to stir up the fundies so that they’ll empty their pockets to “combat them evil libruls” another day.
In no particular order:
- Empathy: As I commented the other day, though the actual meaning of this is more akin to “putting yourself in another’s shoes”, the right use it to mean “using ones emotions to decide an issue rather than reason and precedent” which is only an OK thing to do if you’re a republican-leaning justice deciding favorably to republicans. (see “Judicial Activism”, see also Bush v. Gore)
- Intellectual Lightweight or “not an Intellectual Heavyweight": This is code for “minority”. This woman graduated 2nd in her class at Princeton and was President of the Yale Law Review. Therefore she’s in the top 1% of the top 1% academically. Therefore (according to republican lore) she must have been given those honors because of Affirmative Action and like policies over some more intelligent white person whom she surpassed because of preference to her race.
- Temperament or Aggressive: Female. They wouldn’t dare accuse a male nominee of the same “tendencies”. According to them any woman who shows even the slightest trace of strength or mettle is an aggressive ball-busting lesbian trying to make up for the fact that she’s not a man. Which leads to…
- Emotions: Histrionics. Whenever you hear cons use this word in reference to judges its code for “hey she’s a woman –they’re too unstable to be judges!" Pure misogyny.
- “Maria”: This is rich. Former Governor and failed presidential hopeful turned FOXNews host Mike Huckabee recently referred to her as “Maria Sotomayor” –yeah because all them dang Messican names soundsa’ same don’t they Merv, er, Mike? Carmen Guadalupe Marisol Maria -whassa dang differunce? This just shows how deeply ingrained the racism is on the right. You’re a talk show host Mike. Her name is Sonia –you might want to take the time to learn the names of the people you’re talking about or at least put them in the teleprompter?
- Judicial Activism: While the right-wing noise machine claim this means “legislating from the bench” what it really means is “deciding in any way unfavorably to conservative causes –even when following iron-clad precedent”. Let’s be clear: Bush v. Gore was the most precedent-ignoring, lower court superseding decision in American History. Even the SCOTUS itself said that it was a one-time-deal and should never be used as precedent (which tells you that they knew EXACTLY what they were doing and were embarrassed about it), but do you ever hear the parrots on the right refer to that as Judicial Activism? Of course not –that’s only used to refer to (perceived) liberal judges deciding in accordance with precedent which is unfavorable to conservatives.
- Stare Decisis: This is the term referring to the legal tradition of judges deciding cases based on decisions of prior case-law. E.g. according to precedent. Lower courts are beholden to higher court decisions unless they can come up with some compelling reason to break with precedent and decide differently. To Republicans however this term only applies (as above) to decisions in accordance with republican orthodoxy. E.g. Roe v. Wade is precedent from the highest court in the land but “bad law” according to GOP mouthpieces (oddly they can never explain WHY it’s “bad law” –probably because the only reason is that is contradicts their tightly held beliefs) and therefore any decision weakening Roe can safely ignore Stare Decisis. In Sotomayor’s case –the “Connecticut Firefighter case” was one where not only did she not write anything relating to the case (not the opinion, not a concurring opinion, nothing) but she merely signed on to the majority opinion of the court which followed both SCOTUS precedent (see Crosson, Adarand) as well as the precedent of her own circuit . Text book example of Stare Decisis -but that’s unacceptable to the cons when it tilts against them. Which leads us to…
- Reverse Racism: Minority. This is the most ridiculous and base assertion of them all. “Reverse Racism” necessarily implies that a) there IS racism, and b) that it is the provenance of whites so that there can be a “backlash” against it from minorities –but according to them racism doesn’t exist, and if it does whites are just as likely the target as minorities. Pretzel logic. Racism is racism no matter who it comes from or is directed to right? And since there is no racism what are they so worried about? This is just more code for “minority”.
This list is as I said by no means exhaustive and I’ll update it when new terms come up, but I hope it serves as a basic glossary to use when viewing the next few months of the cable news circus.
Adding: I know I know, it's been a long time in betweeen posts, sorry! Nothing like a good ol SCOTUS nomination to stir up yer ol OP's typin' fingers! See here, here, here, here, and here for precedent!
Saturday, January 24, 2009
President Barack Hussein Obama. President Barack Hussein Obama.
I never get tired of saying it.
For the last 8 years, every time I heard the word "president" in a newscast I cringed and tigntened for what followed. It wasn't until I had the same conditioned response the other night and then felt an enormous wave of release when I realized that they were talking about Obama that I even realized I'd been doing it.
It's wonderful to be genuinely curious to hear what the president has to say again.
I was telling my wife that one of my desires in the next ten years is to go to Europe and that that felt all but impossible until now. I had paraniod flashes that I'd be snatched off the street unless I spoke with a non-american accent. Silly, I know, but now that fear is gone (and I'm sure the risk, however actually low it was, is lessened).
The inauaguration speech was perfect. Humble. Realistic. Directly pointed at the failures of the Bush administration without actually insulting Bush as he sat there (Bush looked beautifully uncomfortable though). And inspiring. I've never felt that. Ever. The first president I remember being conscious of is Nixon. Carter was fine and did a few good things but was uninspiring. Then the hell of the Reagan years. Bush I who was reagan without the personality. Clinton who made you feel good and in retrospect was a good leader for his time, but still not inspiring. And then Bush II who made the Reagan years seem tame.
I don't know what'll happen to Obama, but I know that the country (me included) is in his corner more than any president in my lifetime.
And that's before I even take into acount the historical significance of his election to the office.
It took someone like him to break that barrier.
I never get tired of saying it.
For the last 8 years, every time I heard the word "president" in a newscast I cringed and tigntened for what followed. It wasn't until I had the same conditioned response the other night and then felt an enormous wave of release when I realized that they were talking about Obama that I even realized I'd been doing it.
It's wonderful to be genuinely curious to hear what the president has to say again.
I was telling my wife that one of my desires in the next ten years is to go to Europe and that that felt all but impossible until now. I had paraniod flashes that I'd be snatched off the street unless I spoke with a non-american accent. Silly, I know, but now that fear is gone (and I'm sure the risk, however actually low it was, is lessened).
The inauaguration speech was perfect. Humble. Realistic. Directly pointed at the failures of the Bush administration without actually insulting Bush as he sat there (Bush looked beautifully uncomfortable though). And inspiring. I've never felt that. Ever. The first president I remember being conscious of is Nixon. Carter was fine and did a few good things but was uninspiring. Then the hell of the Reagan years. Bush I who was reagan without the personality. Clinton who made you feel good and in retrospect was a good leader for his time, but still not inspiring. And then Bush II who made the Reagan years seem tame.
I don't know what'll happen to Obama, but I know that the country (me included) is in his corner more than any president in my lifetime.
And that's before I even take into acount the historical significance of his election to the office.
It took someone like him to break that barrier.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Boy oh boy was I wrong.
However, contrary to the majority of politicians, I am willing to admit it and apologise.
I was laboring under the misaprehension that the fact that we just elected an all but ironclad Democratic majority to the Senate and House meant that the Democratic leadership might actually take it as a sign that they could at last grow a pair and assert themselves -or at least back up something -anything- they assert.
Apparently they are still perfectly willing to roll over and take a "f**k you byatch" from even the most ridiculous locally elected executives.
It never fails to stun me how weak the Democratic leadership can be. So Burris is now the junior senator from Illinois and the Democratic leadership looks like the same bunch of round-heeled milquetoasts they always do.
Understand, for me it was never about Burris' qualifications. I'm sure he was plenty qualified, it's just that there was the appearance of impropriety in his selection. Moreover, Reid's attempt at digging his heels in made him look even more weak when he caved. Too hasty a decision AND a crappy example. No leadership. Just because you're next in line doesn't mean you can lead.
However, contrary to the majority of politicians, I am willing to admit it and apologise.
I was laboring under the misaprehension that the fact that we just elected an all but ironclad Democratic majority to the Senate and House meant that the Democratic leadership might actually take it as a sign that they could at last grow a pair and assert themselves -or at least back up something -anything- they assert.
Apparently they are still perfectly willing to roll over and take a "f**k you byatch" from even the most ridiculous locally elected executives.
It never fails to stun me how weak the Democratic leadership can be. So Burris is now the junior senator from Illinois and the Democratic leadership looks like the same bunch of round-heeled milquetoasts they always do.
Understand, for me it was never about Burris' qualifications. I'm sure he was plenty qualified, it's just that there was the appearance of impropriety in his selection. Moreover, Reid's attempt at digging his heels in made him look even more weak when he caved. Too hasty a decision AND a crappy example. No leadership. Just because you're next in line doesn't mean you can lead.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
NEW YEAR SAME OLD PROBLEMS
Happy New Year!
Here's hoping that yours (and please God OURS) is a more happy healthy and prosperous one than any of the last eight.
So long has passed and there are so many issues to address that I guess I'll attempt a scattershot drive-by. Here goes:
BLAGO-GATE
Well gee the euphoria of one Chicago politician's ascendancy sure was drowned out for a moment by the ascendancy to scandal of another wasn't it? Can you believe this guy? It never ceases to amaze me how the phrase "appearance of impropriety" is completely lost on some public figures. I mean, OK, let's assume for a thinly-stretched moment that Blagojevich was doing nothing legally wrong and that he wasn't really trying to sell Barack Obama's vacated senate seat to the highest bidder -wouldn't you want to make damn sure that you couldn't EVER be misinterpreted as doing so? Wouldn't you want to do everything possible to appear to be open and honest and to fend off any possibility of a federal investigation? Now look at the charges against Blago? WTF? I guess these guys who do this kind of stuff really are that stupid.
And the latest twist is that he still actually thinks that anyone will let him appoint Obama's successor. Unbelievable. So he simply pretends that his selection of Roland Burris will be honored and that that's that? Burris talks as though it's a done-deal and he's already the senator? What the hell are these guys thinking?
Article I Section 5 of the Constitution reads: "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members". That last "and Qualifications" pretty much puts the nail in Burris' senatorial coffin doesn't it? I.e. if the senate decides that the taint of the Bagojevich scandal disqualifies Burris' appointment, what text are they going to use to refite it?
And why oh why would Burris let himself be appointed under these circumstances? Doesn't he realize that if he hitches his career to the Blago train that he's committing political suicide? Either he doesn't really care or greed has made him stupid.
The legal challenges are just warming up so pop some popcorn and find a comfy-chair.
THE ECONOMY
Oh boy.
Well gee that Wall street bailout package Congress rushed to pass worked great didn't it? Apparently they weren't really trying to save the banks -just the bankers. No oversight. Read that again. No oversight. None. Nothing to say how the money was supposed to be spent. No guidelines. No restrictions. Nada. Great.
And now they want to bail out the automakers? HA!
The housing market isn't improving any. Unemployment is at its worst since the 80's. The stock market has lost almost 6000 points since last year. (I've never been so happy to be too poor to be a part of the investment class!)
Obama seems really ready to push this stimulus package hard. I guess the idea is to do the Bush stimulus the right way? I.e. more tax cuts but this time for the "right" people.
I'm honestly conflicted about this: in the short run it might give the intended boost -but things are so tight that I have a hard time imagining that unless it's a huge chunk of change that it'll do more than make a few weeks easier for the majority of paycheck-to-paycheck folks.
In addition I've been hearing (and am starting to believe) that tax cuts (even for the middle-class) have a negligible effect on the economy because what really drives the economy is not how much money the government takes or doesn't take, but wages, jobs and GDP etc. none of which tax cuts or even raises helps. In fact you can make a pretty decent argument that RAISING taxes is better in the long run for wages because if companies have to pay x amount of money to employees (with the assumption that a percentage will go the govt.) and taxes go up the companies have to pay more to offset the taxes so that the take home pay is the same and so over time the general salary for the job raises. Conversely, if you cut taxes, the employer is paying the same but the employee takes home more, and the employer doesn't have to raise the employees wage so that over time wages stagnate.
If the government really wants to goose the economy it should make health care universal to alleviate the expense from individual families and corporations and spread the resources over a larger pool (as Obama is planning on doing) and make raising the minimum wage to a livable (not luxurious, but livable) wage.
Both of these could be done without tinkering with the tax code which frankly needs merely to be rolled back to where it was before Bush took office and then left alone. My humble two cents.
ARE WE STILL AT WAR?
Gee weren't we supposed to be at war on two fronts or something? Seems like we've gotten so caught up in the wave of change that's coming that we've forgotten that ghastly fact. The nightly news is all but bereft of coverage and frankly I can't remember when the last time was that I saw a news story on either Iraq or Afghanistan on any of the major three networks. Maybe I'm just missing them but I'm a news junkie so what does that tell you?
Spoke with a friend over the holidays on leave from one of those fronts and he said (albeit in a tight-lipped manner) that things are getting better over there. That's good news, really. I just hope that means we can leave now. It's not like we could use the money or anything.
The inauguration can't be over soon enough IMO we need to new pols to get to work.
Cheers, you lot. -OP
Here's hoping that yours (and please God OURS) is a more happy healthy and prosperous one than any of the last eight.
So long has passed and there are so many issues to address that I guess I'll attempt a scattershot drive-by. Here goes:
BLAGO-GATE
Well gee the euphoria of one Chicago politician's ascendancy sure was drowned out for a moment by the ascendancy to scandal of another wasn't it? Can you believe this guy? It never ceases to amaze me how the phrase "appearance of impropriety" is completely lost on some public figures. I mean, OK, let's assume for a thinly-stretched moment that Blagojevich was doing nothing legally wrong and that he wasn't really trying to sell Barack Obama's vacated senate seat to the highest bidder -wouldn't you want to make damn sure that you couldn't EVER be misinterpreted as doing so? Wouldn't you want to do everything possible to appear to be open and honest and to fend off any possibility of a federal investigation? Now look at the charges against Blago? WTF? I guess these guys who do this kind of stuff really are that stupid.
And the latest twist is that he still actually thinks that anyone will let him appoint Obama's successor. Unbelievable. So he simply pretends that his selection of Roland Burris will be honored and that that's that? Burris talks as though it's a done-deal and he's already the senator? What the hell are these guys thinking?
Article I Section 5 of the Constitution reads: "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members". That last "and Qualifications" pretty much puts the nail in Burris' senatorial coffin doesn't it? I.e. if the senate decides that the taint of the Bagojevich scandal disqualifies Burris' appointment, what text are they going to use to refite it?
And why oh why would Burris let himself be appointed under these circumstances? Doesn't he realize that if he hitches his career to the Blago train that he's committing political suicide? Either he doesn't really care or greed has made him stupid.
The legal challenges are just warming up so pop some popcorn and find a comfy-chair.
THE ECONOMY
Oh boy.
Well gee that Wall street bailout package Congress rushed to pass worked great didn't it? Apparently they weren't really trying to save the banks -just the bankers. No oversight. Read that again. No oversight. None. Nothing to say how the money was supposed to be spent. No guidelines. No restrictions. Nada. Great.
And now they want to bail out the automakers? HA!
The housing market isn't improving any. Unemployment is at its worst since the 80's. The stock market has lost almost 6000 points since last year. (I've never been so happy to be too poor to be a part of the investment class!)
Obama seems really ready to push this stimulus package hard. I guess the idea is to do the Bush stimulus the right way? I.e. more tax cuts but this time for the "right" people.
I'm honestly conflicted about this: in the short run it might give the intended boost -but things are so tight that I have a hard time imagining that unless it's a huge chunk of change that it'll do more than make a few weeks easier for the majority of paycheck-to-paycheck folks.
In addition I've been hearing (and am starting to believe) that tax cuts (even for the middle-class) have a negligible effect on the economy because what really drives the economy is not how much money the government takes or doesn't take, but wages, jobs and GDP etc. none of which tax cuts or even raises helps. In fact you can make a pretty decent argument that RAISING taxes is better in the long run for wages because if companies have to pay x amount of money to employees (with the assumption that a percentage will go the govt.) and taxes go up the companies have to pay more to offset the taxes so that the take home pay is the same and so over time the general salary for the job raises. Conversely, if you cut taxes, the employer is paying the same but the employee takes home more, and the employer doesn't have to raise the employees wage so that over time wages stagnate.
If the government really wants to goose the economy it should make health care universal to alleviate the expense from individual families and corporations and spread the resources over a larger pool (as Obama is planning on doing) and make raising the minimum wage to a livable (not luxurious, but livable) wage.
Both of these could be done without tinkering with the tax code which frankly needs merely to be rolled back to where it was before Bush took office and then left alone. My humble two cents.
ARE WE STILL AT WAR?
Gee weren't we supposed to be at war on two fronts or something? Seems like we've gotten so caught up in the wave of change that's coming that we've forgotten that ghastly fact. The nightly news is all but bereft of coverage and frankly I can't remember when the last time was that I saw a news story on either Iraq or Afghanistan on any of the major three networks. Maybe I'm just missing them but I'm a news junkie so what does that tell you?
Spoke with a friend over the holidays on leave from one of those fronts and he said (albeit in a tight-lipped manner) that things are getting better over there. That's good news, really. I just hope that means we can leave now. It's not like we could use the money or anything.
The inauguration can't be over soon enough IMO we need to new pols to get to work.
Cheers, you lot. -OP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
