After 46 years of service in the United States Senate, Senator Edward Moore Kennedy has passed away at the age of 77. Affectionately known by members of his party as the “Liberal Lion of the Senate,” Kennedy shouldered the burdens and expectations of a storied and tragic political family and provided the voice for the Democratic Party across ten presidents and nearly five decades before finally succumbing to brain cancer late last night at his home in Massachusetts. While Kennedy was privileged to lead a rich and full life, it is tremendously sad that he should die at this moment in history. Ted Kennedy often referred to comprehensive healthcare reform as his “life’s work.” It seems depressingly ironic that now, as this nation is closer to completely transforming its healthcare system than ever before, Ted Kennedy will not be here to witness the fruits of his half-century labor. The Democratic Party, the United States Senate, and this nation, will miss him.
No healthcare musings this week, except for this comment on the debate - or the shouting matches passing for debate the past few weeks. The very fact that people can show up at town hall meetings carrying posters of the President with a Hitler mustache, screaming about Nazi policies and suggesting the tree of liberty be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants, speaks volumes about how peaceful, serene, insular and utterly disconnected from the strife of history and the troubles of the rest of the world this country is. As some of my readers may know, two weeks ago I became U.S. citizen. Prior to the ceremony I waited in a room with 50 other people from 24 other countries, waiting to be sworn in. Some of those people came from countries where children starve to death because the government steals the food aid meant for families. Some came from countries were their next door neighbors murdered the neighbors two houses down with machetes because the government told them the tribe those neighbors came from was inferior and tainted the purity of the country. Some of those people came from countries where the government rounded up citizens of a rival ethnic group into detention centers and systematically “cleansed” them from existence. Many people in that room left countries headed by REAL tyrants, to re-build their lives in America. If the worst example of a tyrant in America is a President who feels that every citizen should have the right to quality, affordable healthcare, and that we should be willing to pay a little more to accomplish that, we’ll take it.
Blazing Saddles is showing on Country Music Television tonight. I find that somewhat bizarre.
In a somewhat disturbing preview of his memoirs to be released later this year, former (praise the Lord!) vice president Cheney indicated that in his second term, former President Bush “went soft” on him, rejecting his advice and bowing to political pressure from both law-makers and the electorate. Wow. You mean it could have been worse?
After several weeks of denying he would, the Los Angeles County coroner declared Michael Jackson’s death a homicide. Toxicology results indicate found lethal levels of the anesthetic Proposol in his system, which interacted with two other sedatives to cause his death. Jackson’s personal physician admitted he had sedated Jackson - at the singer’s request - in an attempt to allow Jackson to get some much needed yet elusive sleep. Obviously, this is not the sleep Michael Jackson was looking for.
John Schnatter, the Papa John of the Papa John’s Pizza franchise was finally reunited with the 1971 Chevy Camaro he was forced to sell in 1983 to keep his father’s tavern afloat and found his pizza empire. It only cost him $250,000. About 6200% more than the now previous owner paid for it in 2004, 1,240% per year. Not a bad return on investment.
Finally, incase you didn’t know, Sunday was National Go Topless Day. Men and women across the country were urged to go topless to show support for a woman’s right to bare her breasts in public. Now, I know what you’re thinking. This sounds like a fantastic idea. And it is. But there’s a catch. There’s always a catch. See, we tried this in Toronto several years ago, and we discovered something very important. Far more often than not, it’s the people who shouldn’t go topless in public, that go topless in public. Be careful what you wish for. You might not want it when you get it.
8.26.2009
8.20.2009
Paper or Plastic
Presented for your viewing pleasure. The healthcare debate, illustrated by the brilliant but cancelled, Clone High. Staring young Abe Lincoln as President Obama, young JFK as the GOP, and Fox News as young Joan of Arc.
While Americans hate being told what to do, we seem to relish being told what to think. And who can blame us really. Thinking for ourselves is so…difficult. Boring even. It’s so much easier and more entertaining to simply recite the talking points of people who claim to have already done the thinking for us. Yes, we love to be told what to think, and we are being told that we are angry. Angry and afraid. Afraid that “the America we grew up in, the America we know and love,” is being ripped from our terrified, aging fingers by the scary black man in the White House who isn’t even an American anyway – let alone a “real” American.
Americans are easily frightened. Old people even more so. And let’s be honest. There is a substantial portion of the population that likes it that way. The whiter the knuckles, the paler the faces, the colder the chills running up and down the spine, the more excited they are. Fear is what gets them up in the morning and keeps them going all day long. And they aren’t content to keep their fear to themselves. No, fear is more fun if it can be shared – a communal fear experience if you will, which is odd considering these same people’s disdain for any other type of community. And to make matters worse, the fear-mongers are represented by 40% of the U.S. Senate.
What are these people so terrified of? It’s hard to say. There are so many things to fear. Death, taxes, Muslims, immigrants, the government, little green men, the greeter at Walmart. Who knows. There’s nothing inherently wrong with fear. Fear of fire keeps most people from locking themselves in their bedroom, lighting a match and dropping it on the carpet. But most fear results from ignorance. And Americans love their ignorance almost as much as they love their fear.
Don’t get me wrong, Americans aren’t dumb. We know a lot of things. It’s just that most of what many of us know isn’t all that important. For example, 50% of Americans can name two Simpsons characters, yet only 25% can name two Supreme Court Justices. And when it comes to knowledge of anything outside the borders of the United States, that intelligence quotient drops even further. Therefore, it becomes very easy for them to believe that countries providing universal “government-run” healthcare for their citizens, like Canada and Sweden and Japan and Australia, are backward, third-world nations killing children and sending grandpa before a “death panel” to determine whether or not he is too expensive to live. They believe bold-faced lies because they have no idea of what the truth is. They’ve never experienced anything outside the lower forty-eight. Some of them have never left their own state. Ask 100 Canadians if they believe the Canadian healthcare system is flawed, and 85 will say yes, of course it is. But if you ask 100 Canadians if they would trade their healthcare system for the American private insurance system, 85 will respond with an emphatic “HELL NO!”
Fear causes otherwise rational people to make irrational arguments. Town hall meetings across the country have drawn protesters and signs stating that proposed reforms amount to socialized medicine, and government-run healthcare/health insurance is evil and has no place in this country. Many of those signs are carried by people in their forties, fifties and sixties. People who are currently, are about to be, or have children covered by Medicare and/or Medicaid. Government-run health insurance. When asked by Senator Claire McCaskill at a recent town hall meeting how many would like to give up their Medicare and switch to private insurance, not one person responded in the affirmative. Apparently, government-run healthcare is only evil if it’s not your government-run healthcare.
Opponents of reform repeat ad nauseam that the government is incapable of doing anything right, of administering any program correctly. In the next sentence, the same people claim that private insurance companies would simply never be able to compete with a public insurance plan, administered by the afore-mentioned incompetent, ill-equipped, mess of a federal government. So, complete the syllogism. No government program is any good. Private insurance can’t compete with a government program. Therefore, private insurance is worse than government-run insurance.
Opponents of the public option claim that the government simply will not compete on a level playing field with private insurance, that because of its size, the government will be able to provide service and insurance at such a low cost that private insurance will be unable to compete, and be forced out of business. The fact that their vision of a government that operates efficiently and effectively is completely contrary to every single word they have espoused about government since the formation of the Republican Party aside, what they are saying is that the government would essentially become some version of a Walmart Supercenter, competing with “mom and pop” insurance companies for business. While liberals have long been concerned with the impact of Walmart on local businesses and the surrounding urban fabric, it’s not something conservatives and free market capitalists have ever cared about. To them, Walmart is the greatest thing since Twinkies-On-A-Stick. It is the very model of capitalism, using its size, and therefore influence, to provide consumers with products they want at prices they can afford. If the “mom and pop” neighborhood shops can’t compete, then maybe they were charging too much to begin with and deserve to go out of business. If conservatives believe that to be a good idea in the case of Walmart, why not healthcare? Seriously, why not?
There are legitimate concerns in this healthcare debate. But instead of discussing them, we’re spending time fabricating stories of “death panels,” rationing and Soviet-style socialism. And on top of all that, we now have protesters bringing assault weapons to anti-Obama rallies outside town hall meetings while toting signs quoting Thomas Jefferson that the tree of liberty must from time to time be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. While it may be perfectly legal for these idiots to take their AR-15 rifles to these rallies, just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should. Make no mistake, these people are no different from the men with sticks and dogs and guns and sheets that used to show up at polling places in the South to intimidate people attempting to vote. Their goal is the same. They aren’t there to assault the President. They show up with their weapons to intimidate the opposition into silence, under implicit threat of violence. Legal, silent intimidation. Clever tactic. Until someone actually gets hurt.
This past Monday, the Supreme Court ordered a federal court in the state of Georgia (that should have been a clue right off the top) to “receive testimony and make findings of fact” in order to establish whether or not the new evidence in a death penalty case will establish the innocence of the accused. Upset with the court’s decision, Justice Scalia (and by proxy Justice Thomas) issued a dissent in which he stated the following; “This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.” This is the problem with Constitutional originalism. It leads otherwise intelligent people to say incredibly stupid things. According to Scalia, this country’s primary legal document actually condones the state-sanctioned murder of innocent people. While it is true that the Constitution does not explicitly forbid capital murder of innocent people, it should be obvious to anyone with at least half a brain that executing an innocent person directly and absolutely violates the spirit of a document ensuring life, liberty, due process and the pursuit of happiness.
In lighter news, it’s football season again! (Sorry Gail.) And what would football season be without yet another round of Brett Favre drama. It seems that I – and millions of others – called this one right. When Favre told the Minnesota Vikings three weeks ago that he would not be returning to football after all, he didn’t really mean it. Today, Number 4 showed up at Vikings practice ready to start in next week’s pre-season game, with a contract to follow in the coming days. All things considered, Minnesota is a pretty good fit for Favre. A solid offensive line means he is less likely to be forced into making stupid throws, and having the best running back in the game in the back field with him greatly reduces the number of passing attempts he’ll be making. Even at his age, if Brett Favre is limited to 20 or 25 passes per game, he’s as good as nearly anyone out there.
Former Atlanta Falcon and convicted felon Michael Vick is now a Philadelphia Eagle. Bad idea. Of all the places he could have signed, this is probably the worse one he could have chosen. Philly sports fans are the worst sports fans in all of sports. These are the fans that pelted Santa Claus with snowballs. If a fat man bearing gifts can’t get any love, a dog-fight sponsoring K-9 killer doesn’t stand a chance.
Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt shattered his own world record time posting a blazing 9.58 second 100-meter-dash at the World Championships last weekend. His closest competitor finished in 9.71 seconds, a full .13 seconds behind and barely even in the same camera shot as Bolt. Absolutely unbelievable. Never in my lifetime did I think I would see anyone break 9.5 seconds. At the rate Bolt is going, We'll probably hit that mark long before the 2012 games roll around.
Finally, by a fairly wide margin, the city of Seattle voted not to impose a 20 cent fee on paper and plastic bags at retail stores within the city limits. You heard that correctly. Residents of Seattle, Washington voted against an environmental clean-up measure. That crackling sound you hear? That’s hell freezing over.
While Americans hate being told what to do, we seem to relish being told what to think. And who can blame us really. Thinking for ourselves is so…difficult. Boring even. It’s so much easier and more entertaining to simply recite the talking points of people who claim to have already done the thinking for us. Yes, we love to be told what to think, and we are being told that we are angry. Angry and afraid. Afraid that “the America we grew up in, the America we know and love,” is being ripped from our terrified, aging fingers by the scary black man in the White House who isn’t even an American anyway – let alone a “real” American.
Americans are easily frightened. Old people even more so. And let’s be honest. There is a substantial portion of the population that likes it that way. The whiter the knuckles, the paler the faces, the colder the chills running up and down the spine, the more excited they are. Fear is what gets them up in the morning and keeps them going all day long. And they aren’t content to keep their fear to themselves. No, fear is more fun if it can be shared – a communal fear experience if you will, which is odd considering these same people’s disdain for any other type of community. And to make matters worse, the fear-mongers are represented by 40% of the U.S. Senate.
What are these people so terrified of? It’s hard to say. There are so many things to fear. Death, taxes, Muslims, immigrants, the government, little green men, the greeter at Walmart. Who knows. There’s nothing inherently wrong with fear. Fear of fire keeps most people from locking themselves in their bedroom, lighting a match and dropping it on the carpet. But most fear results from ignorance. And Americans love their ignorance almost as much as they love their fear.
Don’t get me wrong, Americans aren’t dumb. We know a lot of things. It’s just that most of what many of us know isn’t all that important. For example, 50% of Americans can name two Simpsons characters, yet only 25% can name two Supreme Court Justices. And when it comes to knowledge of anything outside the borders of the United States, that intelligence quotient drops even further. Therefore, it becomes very easy for them to believe that countries providing universal “government-run” healthcare for their citizens, like Canada and Sweden and Japan and Australia, are backward, third-world nations killing children and sending grandpa before a “death panel” to determine whether or not he is too expensive to live. They believe bold-faced lies because they have no idea of what the truth is. They’ve never experienced anything outside the lower forty-eight. Some of them have never left their own state. Ask 100 Canadians if they believe the Canadian healthcare system is flawed, and 85 will say yes, of course it is. But if you ask 100 Canadians if they would trade their healthcare system for the American private insurance system, 85 will respond with an emphatic “HELL NO!”
Fear causes otherwise rational people to make irrational arguments. Town hall meetings across the country have drawn protesters and signs stating that proposed reforms amount to socialized medicine, and government-run healthcare/health insurance is evil and has no place in this country. Many of those signs are carried by people in their forties, fifties and sixties. People who are currently, are about to be, or have children covered by Medicare and/or Medicaid. Government-run health insurance. When asked by Senator Claire McCaskill at a recent town hall meeting how many would like to give up their Medicare and switch to private insurance, not one person responded in the affirmative. Apparently, government-run healthcare is only evil if it’s not your government-run healthcare.
Opponents of reform repeat ad nauseam that the government is incapable of doing anything right, of administering any program correctly. In the next sentence, the same people claim that private insurance companies would simply never be able to compete with a public insurance plan, administered by the afore-mentioned incompetent, ill-equipped, mess of a federal government. So, complete the syllogism. No government program is any good. Private insurance can’t compete with a government program. Therefore, private insurance is worse than government-run insurance.
Opponents of the public option claim that the government simply will not compete on a level playing field with private insurance, that because of its size, the government will be able to provide service and insurance at such a low cost that private insurance will be unable to compete, and be forced out of business. The fact that their vision of a government that operates efficiently and effectively is completely contrary to every single word they have espoused about government since the formation of the Republican Party aside, what they are saying is that the government would essentially become some version of a Walmart Supercenter, competing with “mom and pop” insurance companies for business. While liberals have long been concerned with the impact of Walmart on local businesses and the surrounding urban fabric, it’s not something conservatives and free market capitalists have ever cared about. To them, Walmart is the greatest thing since Twinkies-On-A-Stick. It is the very model of capitalism, using its size, and therefore influence, to provide consumers with products they want at prices they can afford. If the “mom and pop” neighborhood shops can’t compete, then maybe they were charging too much to begin with and deserve to go out of business. If conservatives believe that to be a good idea in the case of Walmart, why not healthcare? Seriously, why not?
There are legitimate concerns in this healthcare debate. But instead of discussing them, we’re spending time fabricating stories of “death panels,” rationing and Soviet-style socialism. And on top of all that, we now have protesters bringing assault weapons to anti-Obama rallies outside town hall meetings while toting signs quoting Thomas Jefferson that the tree of liberty must from time to time be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. While it may be perfectly legal for these idiots to take their AR-15 rifles to these rallies, just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should. Make no mistake, these people are no different from the men with sticks and dogs and guns and sheets that used to show up at polling places in the South to intimidate people attempting to vote. Their goal is the same. They aren’t there to assault the President. They show up with their weapons to intimidate the opposition into silence, under implicit threat of violence. Legal, silent intimidation. Clever tactic. Until someone actually gets hurt.
This past Monday, the Supreme Court ordered a federal court in the state of Georgia (that should have been a clue right off the top) to “receive testimony and make findings of fact” in order to establish whether or not the new evidence in a death penalty case will establish the innocence of the accused. Upset with the court’s decision, Justice Scalia (and by proxy Justice Thomas) issued a dissent in which he stated the following; “This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.” This is the problem with Constitutional originalism. It leads otherwise intelligent people to say incredibly stupid things. According to Scalia, this country’s primary legal document actually condones the state-sanctioned murder of innocent people. While it is true that the Constitution does not explicitly forbid capital murder of innocent people, it should be obvious to anyone with at least half a brain that executing an innocent person directly and absolutely violates the spirit of a document ensuring life, liberty, due process and the pursuit of happiness.
In lighter news, it’s football season again! (Sorry Gail.) And what would football season be without yet another round of Brett Favre drama. It seems that I – and millions of others – called this one right. When Favre told the Minnesota Vikings three weeks ago that he would not be returning to football after all, he didn’t really mean it. Today, Number 4 showed up at Vikings practice ready to start in next week’s pre-season game, with a contract to follow in the coming days. All things considered, Minnesota is a pretty good fit for Favre. A solid offensive line means he is less likely to be forced into making stupid throws, and having the best running back in the game in the back field with him greatly reduces the number of passing attempts he’ll be making. Even at his age, if Brett Favre is limited to 20 or 25 passes per game, he’s as good as nearly anyone out there.
Former Atlanta Falcon and convicted felon Michael Vick is now a Philadelphia Eagle. Bad idea. Of all the places he could have signed, this is probably the worse one he could have chosen. Philly sports fans are the worst sports fans in all of sports. These are the fans that pelted Santa Claus with snowballs. If a fat man bearing gifts can’t get any love, a dog-fight sponsoring K-9 killer doesn’t stand a chance.
Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt shattered his own world record time posting a blazing 9.58 second 100-meter-dash at the World Championships last weekend. His closest competitor finished in 9.71 seconds, a full .13 seconds behind and barely even in the same camera shot as Bolt. Absolutely unbelievable. Never in my lifetime did I think I would see anyone break 9.5 seconds. At the rate Bolt is going, We'll probably hit that mark long before the 2012 games roll around.
Finally, by a fairly wide margin, the city of Seattle voted not to impose a 20 cent fee on paper and plastic bags at retail stores within the city limits. You heard that correctly. Residents of Seattle, Washington voted against an environmental clean-up measure. That crackling sound you hear? That’s hell freezing over.
8.11.2009
Two Dollar Bills
As of 10:00 am this coming Friday, I will officially be sworn in as a citizen of the United States of America. To celebrate the end of nine years of taxation without representation, I have decided to do the most American thing I could think of - take the week off. Be back next week.
8.06.2009
Rough Week
Washington Post sports reporter and ESPN co-host Michael Wilbon to Indy Racing League Champion Tony Kanann on Pardon the Interruption this past Monday afternoon; “So, what was it like to be on fire?” You know you’re having a bad week when…
The feel-good story of the week is the release of captive American journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee for North Korea following a visit from former president Bill Clinton. Well, feel-good for everyone not working at Fox News. It took Fox about four minutes following the announcement of the release to find some way to spin the end of a hostage situation into some bizarre, baseless theory that Obama had sold out the country for a photo-op. Without a shred of evidence, every guest and commentator on the network decided there had been some super secret quid pro quo that will prove to be disastrous to the nation in the coming months or years. Their braying reminded me of the story of a previous administration after insisting it did not negotiate with terrorists, covertly traded weapons to a hostile Iranian regime in exchange for American hostages, then lied about it to Congress. It might even be funny if the Reagan administration official responsible for orchestrating the whole sordid affair didn’t host his own show on said network.
The other major story seemed to be the government’s “cash for clunkers” program. Remember the stimulus package? You know, the 787 billion dollar spending package the opposition claimed was a dismal failure – even though it isn’t, and only about 10% of the funds have been distributed? Yes, well one billion dollars worth of stimulus funding was set aside to offer an incentive of up to $4,500 for new car buyers to trade in old gas guzzlers for new, more fuel-efficient vehicles. The White House expected the program to run through September. But since it began last week Monday, over 200,000 vehicles have been sold under the program, bankrupting it in less than a week. The most popular trade-ins were older trucks and SUVs, while the most popular purchase turned out to be the Ford Focus, averaging 35 highway miles per gallon. Due in large part to the success of program, Ford Motor Company posted its first profit in two years. The numbers for “cash for clunkers” are slightly misleading, since many car dealers had already been selling vehicles under the program several weeks in advance of its start date. Never the less, the point was made – and in dramatic fashion. Federal stimulus does work. Perhaps too well.
Anxious to glom on to any positive economic news, the House rushed to divert $2 billion additional dollars previously allocated to clean energy research to keep “cash for clunkers” alive, then left for August recess, leaving the fate of the program in the hands of the Senate. In Canada we refer to our Senate as the chamber of sober second thought. Sadly that’s can’t be said for Washington. Faced with the prospect of admitting that at least a portion of the stimulus package they refused to support was doing exactly what it was supposed to do, Republican opponents – as they had so deftly accomplished with the rationalization for the Iraq war – simply changed the debate. Instead of acknowledging their misstep, they attempted to ridicule the program, suggesting that perhaps the government should institute “cash for cluckers” to get people to eat more chicken. Sigh. Maybe we should look into passing a “sense for Senators” program to help stimulate common sense.
And what is this business about August recess. Is Congress a collection of first graders that they need time to go play outside? Why not add nap time and hot lunches too?
In the spirit of equal opportunity criticism, Democrats proved against last week that Republicans have no monopoly on stupidity. In a speech to industry insiders, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner indicated that to date the government has recovered an eight billion dollar profit on money loaned to failing financial institutions – money many critics insisted the taxpayer would never get back. This led an intrepid reporter to ask Senate Democratic leaders what they planned to do with these unexpected profits? Now, in case you’re wondering, the answer to this question is very simple, and should be painfully obvious to a party driven to paralysis in paranoia about record and rising budget deficits. Use the profits from TARP to pay down the budget deficit. But no. Instead of providing the logical, fiscally responsible, confidence-building response, Democrats suggest using the afore-mentioned profits to perhaps modify more home loans or extend unemployment benefits. There’s a reason the Democratic Party has a reputation in some circles for being unable to control their spending. Sometimes, they can’t. For crying out loud, try not to screw this up.
This week’s musings on healthcare are brought to you courtesy of the media. Every television, radio, newspaper and new media pundit in the lower forty-eight agrees – without exception – that the leading factor in the death of healthcare reform in 1993 was the fact that the White House drafted a bill behind closed doors at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, took it up to Capitol Hill and demanded they sign it. They all agree that President Obama learned from the mistakes of the Clinton administration by giving Congress a set of guidelines and letting them work out the details. Yet every single television, radio, newspaper and new media pundit in the lower forty-eight now insists that the President needs to take a larger roll in crafting the healthcare bill stumbling through Congress. Hmm. So, in order to save the healthcare bill, the President must engage in the very same behavior that killed the previous attempt at healthcare reform, so that he can then be blamed for falling to learn from the mistakes of the previous administration. I guess you have to fill the remaining 23 hours and 53 minutes of the news cycle with something.
It’s that time again. Corporate bonuses are due. Stories surfaced all over the media last week regarding the amount of money financial institutions had set aside to pad the pockets of their talent. The story garnering the most attention was that of the Citi Group trader reportedly due a $100 million bonus come the end of the fourth quarter, a bonus he fully expects to receive. Many people are upset at the idea that even after the last round of bonus outrage, a corporation partially responsible for the financial collapse with hundreds of billions in bad decisions, thousands – if not millions of layoffs by proxy and owing tens of billions of dollars to the American taxpayers would even consider paying out a nine figure bonus to one man. But I think those people fail to grasp the concept of bonuses in the same manner the corporations did prior to the meltdown. The argument is, has been and should be that financial sector bonuses should be given based on performance. The Citi Group trader in question made over $2 billion for the company. Anybody earning $2 billion for his employer deserves a bonus, and $100 million isn’t all that much in comparison. People should be rewarded for good performance. The problem with the first round of bonuses is that corporations were paying billions in bonuses to the very same people who bankrupted the company. Rewards for positive performance, penalties for negative performance. It’s a pretty simple concept. Isn’t it?
Finally, an amusing side note to the recent debate over the trimming of the defense budget. The President threatened to veto any bill containing funding for additional F-22 fighters beyond the 187 units already contracted for. Republicans – and some Democrats – with a financial interest in the production of additional F-22 units insisted on more of them, even though the defense department has repeatedly stated its desire to replace the jets with the much less expensive F-35 joint strike fighter. There are plenty of reasons to discontinue the F-22. First and foremost, we have 187 of these bad boys that we have NEVER used in either combat or bombing missions. Oh, and on top of that, according to air force documents, the F-22 is vulnerable to rain. That’s right, rain. The most technologically advanced aircraft in the world cannot be flown through a thunderstorm, an April shower or anywhere in the Pacific Northwest. How is that even possible? Aren’t these things assembled in Seattle? Do they have to shrink warp the planes in order to transport them across country? If we ever get into a war with any country not dominated by desert, we are screwed.
The feel-good story of the week is the release of captive American journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee for North Korea following a visit from former president Bill Clinton. Well, feel-good for everyone not working at Fox News. It took Fox about four minutes following the announcement of the release to find some way to spin the end of a hostage situation into some bizarre, baseless theory that Obama had sold out the country for a photo-op. Without a shred of evidence, every guest and commentator on the network decided there had been some super secret quid pro quo that will prove to be disastrous to the nation in the coming months or years. Their braying reminded me of the story of a previous administration after insisting it did not negotiate with terrorists, covertly traded weapons to a hostile Iranian regime in exchange for American hostages, then lied about it to Congress. It might even be funny if the Reagan administration official responsible for orchestrating the whole sordid affair didn’t host his own show on said network.
The other major story seemed to be the government’s “cash for clunkers” program. Remember the stimulus package? You know, the 787 billion dollar spending package the opposition claimed was a dismal failure – even though it isn’t, and only about 10% of the funds have been distributed? Yes, well one billion dollars worth of stimulus funding was set aside to offer an incentive of up to $4,500 for new car buyers to trade in old gas guzzlers for new, more fuel-efficient vehicles. The White House expected the program to run through September. But since it began last week Monday, over 200,000 vehicles have been sold under the program, bankrupting it in less than a week. The most popular trade-ins were older trucks and SUVs, while the most popular purchase turned out to be the Ford Focus, averaging 35 highway miles per gallon. Due in large part to the success of program, Ford Motor Company posted its first profit in two years. The numbers for “cash for clunkers” are slightly misleading, since many car dealers had already been selling vehicles under the program several weeks in advance of its start date. Never the less, the point was made – and in dramatic fashion. Federal stimulus does work. Perhaps too well.
Anxious to glom on to any positive economic news, the House rushed to divert $2 billion additional dollars previously allocated to clean energy research to keep “cash for clunkers” alive, then left for August recess, leaving the fate of the program in the hands of the Senate. In Canada we refer to our Senate as the chamber of sober second thought. Sadly that’s can’t be said for Washington. Faced with the prospect of admitting that at least a portion of the stimulus package they refused to support was doing exactly what it was supposed to do, Republican opponents – as they had so deftly accomplished with the rationalization for the Iraq war – simply changed the debate. Instead of acknowledging their misstep, they attempted to ridicule the program, suggesting that perhaps the government should institute “cash for cluckers” to get people to eat more chicken. Sigh. Maybe we should look into passing a “sense for Senators” program to help stimulate common sense.
And what is this business about August recess. Is Congress a collection of first graders that they need time to go play outside? Why not add nap time and hot lunches too?
In the spirit of equal opportunity criticism, Democrats proved against last week that Republicans have no monopoly on stupidity. In a speech to industry insiders, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner indicated that to date the government has recovered an eight billion dollar profit on money loaned to failing financial institutions – money many critics insisted the taxpayer would never get back. This led an intrepid reporter to ask Senate Democratic leaders what they planned to do with these unexpected profits? Now, in case you’re wondering, the answer to this question is very simple, and should be painfully obvious to a party driven to paralysis in paranoia about record and rising budget deficits. Use the profits from TARP to pay down the budget deficit. But no. Instead of providing the logical, fiscally responsible, confidence-building response, Democrats suggest using the afore-mentioned profits to perhaps modify more home loans or extend unemployment benefits. There’s a reason the Democratic Party has a reputation in some circles for being unable to control their spending. Sometimes, they can’t. For crying out loud, try not to screw this up.
This week’s musings on healthcare are brought to you courtesy of the media. Every television, radio, newspaper and new media pundit in the lower forty-eight agrees – without exception – that the leading factor in the death of healthcare reform in 1993 was the fact that the White House drafted a bill behind closed doors at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, took it up to Capitol Hill and demanded they sign it. They all agree that President Obama learned from the mistakes of the Clinton administration by giving Congress a set of guidelines and letting them work out the details. Yet every single television, radio, newspaper and new media pundit in the lower forty-eight now insists that the President needs to take a larger roll in crafting the healthcare bill stumbling through Congress. Hmm. So, in order to save the healthcare bill, the President must engage in the very same behavior that killed the previous attempt at healthcare reform, so that he can then be blamed for falling to learn from the mistakes of the previous administration. I guess you have to fill the remaining 23 hours and 53 minutes of the news cycle with something.
It’s that time again. Corporate bonuses are due. Stories surfaced all over the media last week regarding the amount of money financial institutions had set aside to pad the pockets of their talent. The story garnering the most attention was that of the Citi Group trader reportedly due a $100 million bonus come the end of the fourth quarter, a bonus he fully expects to receive. Many people are upset at the idea that even after the last round of bonus outrage, a corporation partially responsible for the financial collapse with hundreds of billions in bad decisions, thousands – if not millions of layoffs by proxy and owing tens of billions of dollars to the American taxpayers would even consider paying out a nine figure bonus to one man. But I think those people fail to grasp the concept of bonuses in the same manner the corporations did prior to the meltdown. The argument is, has been and should be that financial sector bonuses should be given based on performance. The Citi Group trader in question made over $2 billion for the company. Anybody earning $2 billion for his employer deserves a bonus, and $100 million isn’t all that much in comparison. People should be rewarded for good performance. The problem with the first round of bonuses is that corporations were paying billions in bonuses to the very same people who bankrupted the company. Rewards for positive performance, penalties for negative performance. It’s a pretty simple concept. Isn’t it?
Finally, an amusing side note to the recent debate over the trimming of the defense budget. The President threatened to veto any bill containing funding for additional F-22 fighters beyond the 187 units already contracted for. Republicans – and some Democrats – with a financial interest in the production of additional F-22 units insisted on more of them, even though the defense department has repeatedly stated its desire to replace the jets with the much less expensive F-35 joint strike fighter. There are plenty of reasons to discontinue the F-22. First and foremost, we have 187 of these bad boys that we have NEVER used in either combat or bombing missions. Oh, and on top of that, according to air force documents, the F-22 is vulnerable to rain. That’s right, rain. The most technologically advanced aircraft in the world cannot be flown through a thunderstorm, an April shower or anywhere in the Pacific Northwest. How is that even possible? Aren’t these things assembled in Seattle? Do they have to shrink warp the planes in order to transport them across country? If we ever get into a war with any country not dominated by desert, we are screwed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
