Really? Obama is failing? Because from where I sit, he seems to be doing pretty darn well under the circumstances.
I see a lot of gratuitous reference to race here - but in all honesty, Obama's racial background had precisely nothing to do with most voters' choice to support him. He could have been any race - that's not what determined who earned the nomination. It was about policy - and it still is.
As far as policy, Obama seems to be doing pretty well. Democrats managed to get a pretty substantial piece of health care legislation passed, which is already improving access to care for millions. They also succeeded in preventing a massive depression with some timely economic stimulus, and rescued the US car industry. Democrats have also restored full funding to the Veterans' Administration, taken effective action to manage the foreclosure crisis, provided some tax relief to low income earners, and fully committed to success and eventual withdrawal in Afghanistan.
In fact, there is very little that Obama can be said to have "lied" about, if anything. In comparison to the previous administration, the current one is a vision of purity and wholesomeness.
In what sense is Obama failing? None that I can see. He is experiencing the push-back that progressive reformers always face from entrenched corporate interests. Of course his popularity has dropped since inauguration. However, Obama remains one of the most popular politicians nationally, and has been doggedly pursuing his policies in spite of complaints from both the right and the left. In reality, Obama has worked hard to embody the vision of post partisan, pragmatic progressivism that he promoted as his platform. He has been met by unprecedented levels of partisan opposition and obstruction, and in spite of this he has accomplished more than most Presidents achieve in 4 years before he has been in office for 2.
If this is failure for the Democrats, then I must have missed something...
Liar, liar: Why Obama is failing
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Monday, July 12, 2010
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Blinded by History
The war mongering of Bush was hardly an effective response to the emerging threats facing the USA. Instead of using our resources to promote our national interest, we have become embroiled in ancient tribal and religious conflicts in a region where we have little to gain, and much to lose.
Obama is embarking on a reinvention of America’s international reputation, which is much needed after the punishment inflicted under Bush. At the same time, he is taking practical and realistic steps to push for a realignment in international relations. Rather than the “with us or against us” rhetoric of Bush, Obama is working on the basis of building consensus.
In the long term, the strategy of Obama is the only one that can succeed. Without international cooperation and agreement, the US cannot achieve her long term strategic goals. Extricating our military from Iraq and Afghanistan is likely to take many years, and cost us a great deal more blood and treasure. Inviting more of the same is a fool’s game, and one that Obama is determined not play.
Going it alone is a recipe for foreign policy disaster, as made clear by Bush & Co. While Bush was starting a war in Iraq for his own purposes, he took the eye off of the ball. Afghanistan turned against us, Iraq became a quagmire, and North Korea and Iran both made more progress toward nuclear weapons than under any previous administration.
Given the situation he faces, Obama is taking the right steps to restore American standing in the world, and refocus our military and diplomatic efforts on protecting the vital interests of Americans, rather than corporations. It is a welcome change, and a hopeful one.
Obama is embarking on a reinvention of America’s international reputation, which is much needed after the punishment inflicted under Bush. At the same time, he is taking practical and realistic steps to push for a realignment in international relations. Rather than the “with us or against us” rhetoric of Bush, Obama is working on the basis of building consensus.
In the long term, the strategy of Obama is the only one that can succeed. Without international cooperation and agreement, the US cannot achieve her long term strategic goals. Extricating our military from Iraq and Afghanistan is likely to take many years, and cost us a great deal more blood and treasure. Inviting more of the same is a fool’s game, and one that Obama is determined not play.
Going it alone is a recipe for foreign policy disaster, as made clear by Bush & Co. While Bush was starting a war in Iraq for his own purposes, he took the eye off of the ball. Afghanistan turned against us, Iraq became a quagmire, and North Korea and Iran both made more progress toward nuclear weapons than under any previous administration.
Given the situation he faces, Obama is taking the right steps to restore American standing in the world, and refocus our military and diplomatic efforts on protecting the vital interests of Americans, rather than corporations. It is a welcome change, and a hopeful one.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Health Care for All
1. When it comes to health insurance, collectivism is the nature of the beast. There is no insurance without it. Calling an incentive a disincentive is also rather perverse. Without tax breaks for employer provided health care, millions more would do without coverage. That’s no solution. What do you have against socialism, anyway?
2. Medicare represents a vast improvement in living standards for most elderly persons. A broader public plan would likewise represent a vast improvement in living standards for most currently uninsured persons. The benefit of socialized medicine for cost control, access to care, and patient outcomes is well supported by the state of health care in Europe.
3. The chimera of “affordable individual health insurance” is not an argument.
4. The problems you have identified with private for-profit insurance are related to the perverse incentives of profit in this sector. Health insurance should be a non-profit enterprise, as should police and fire protection. People die in the current system so that others can make more money. This is a perversity that would not exist without the profit motive. Don’t try to blame socialism for the collateral damage inherent in a capitalist system. That’s just sad.
5. The bottom line is that the market is not the best answer to every problem, despite your protests to the contrary. “Socialism” in the form of pooling our resources is sometimes the best solution, and government is sometimes a very good mechanism for this. There is a reason that we have a government, and it is to do what the market cannot. Effective and affordable health care for all Americans will not happen without further government action. It is perverse for a government that has publicly funded fire and police systems designed to protect the property of all citizens to be restrained from providing the corollary services to protect the very lives of the people.
Neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism is desirable. In the case of health care, socialist solutions are the best solutions.
2. Medicare represents a vast improvement in living standards for most elderly persons. A broader public plan would likewise represent a vast improvement in living standards for most currently uninsured persons. The benefit of socialized medicine for cost control, access to care, and patient outcomes is well supported by the state of health care in Europe.
3. The chimera of “affordable individual health insurance” is not an argument.
4. The problems you have identified with private for-profit insurance are related to the perverse incentives of profit in this sector. Health insurance should be a non-profit enterprise, as should police and fire protection. People die in the current system so that others can make more money. This is a perversity that would not exist without the profit motive. Don’t try to blame socialism for the collateral damage inherent in a capitalist system. That’s just sad.
5. The bottom line is that the market is not the best answer to every problem, despite your protests to the contrary. “Socialism” in the form of pooling our resources is sometimes the best solution, and government is sometimes a very good mechanism for this. There is a reason that we have a government, and it is to do what the market cannot. Effective and affordable health care for all Americans will not happen without further government action. It is perverse for a government that has publicly funded fire and police systems designed to protect the property of all citizens to be restrained from providing the corollary services to protect the very lives of the people.
Neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism is desirable. In the case of health care, socialist solutions are the best solutions.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Health Care Lies
Here's my point-by-point reply:
1. ObamaCare’s centerpiece, a Medicare-like “public option,” would cause millions of Americans to lose their employer-provided health insurance.
Millions of Americans have already lost, or never had, employer-provided health insurance. Moreover, those who lose their employer-provided health insurance will be able to get insurance, regardless of their income or pre-existing conditions. A "public option" might cause some reduction in employer provided health care, but the figure cited (118 million) from the Lewin Group is absurdly high. Perhaps a consequence of the Lewin Group's status as a wholly-owned arm of the health care industry?
2. Government-run health care would lead to rationing.
Private health care has already led to rationing, but not on a rational basis. Denying care is the primary method of reducing costs practiced by private insurers. Right now, care is rationed based on ability to pay, and the decisions of insurance executives. Increased competition and choice does not preclude a public option, and a public option does not require a reduction in care to reduce costs - just a reduction in the profit motive as the primary driver of health care.
3. ObamaCare would cost a fortune, and we’re already running higher deficits than during the Great Depression.
ObamaCare would "bend the curve" in the long term, and make it possible for health care to survive the retiring boomers who would otherwise break it. We are running higher deficits than ever because the last eight years were a non-stop assault on the US economy and government. It takes a lot of money to repair the kind of damage done by the Bush administration.
Even so, ObamaCare will expand health coverage, reduce health care expenditures, and remove the long-term risk of insolvency in Medicare. Arbitrarily reducing deficits in the midst of a financial crisis is a proven loser.
4. ObamaCare would ruin private insurance.
ObamaCare does not ruin private insurance. It simply gives consumers another choice, and prevents gaps in coverage due to job loss or pre-existing conditions. The "public option" uses government to efficiently cover care for millions of Americans, as is currently done by Medicare. There is no evidence that a public option would reduce the quality of private care - it is much more likely that private competition will motivate improvements in care as private companies work to compete.
5. ObamaCare would encourage people to leave the medical profession.
This is absurd. People do not go into the medical profession as a way to make themselves rich - and if they do, they should not be encouraged. It is much more likely that employment in the health sector would be much higher, because with more people covered by insurance, there would be more people with access to care. There is no reason to believe that improved and expanded insurance coverage would be a deterrent to those interested in practicing medicine.
6. In addition to increasing deficits, ObamaCare would increase overall health costs.
Your "study" shows nothing about the overall costs of health care. You do not address any of the collateral benefits of having health coverage, and do not recognize the impact of demographics on program costs.
In short, you have no evidence. Your supposed evidence simply shows how private insurers can make a bigger profit by denying care to millions of Americans. That's not evidence of anything about overall health costs.
7. Based on Medicare’s track record, ObamaCare’s costs would almost certainly exceed estimates.
ObamaCare could exceed cost estimates by a very large margin and still be much more cost-effective than our current system.
8. ObamaCare would create a two-tiered health-care system, to the detriment of the middle class.
We already have a two-tiered health-care system, to the detriment of the middle and lower classes. The rich will always get whatever care they want, but for the middle class health reform would at least preserve access to care that is often jeopardized in our current system. There is again, no evidence that the middle class would suffer worse health under a public system, but plenty of evidence from overseas that public health care is more effective and efficient than our private system.
9. ObamaCare would kill the prospects for real reform.
No real reform has been forthcoming for some time - now is the best chance we will ever have. ObamaCare ends unfair practices that impact the uninsured, and encourages a more vibrant free market in which consumers can shop for value - for the best care, at the best prices. Rather than being excluded from care due to pre-existing conditions, or compelled to join the plan of an employer, under ObamaCare the choice would be restored to each of us.
ObamaCare is real reform.
10. The centralization of power in Washington saps the strength of our citizenry and slowly deprives us of liberty.
This is just a tag line to get folks interested in your "think-tank". Liberty without life is not very valuable - health care reform serves the general welfare, very much in keeping with the spirit of the founders. ObamaCare is about balancing the strength of the citizenry against the strength of private interests that currently are not serving the public interest.
Corporations have an obligation to be good citizens - if they cannot do so voluntarily, it is the place of government to set them straight. We the People grant the corporate charter, and have every right to revoke it.
We need ObamaCare.
1. ObamaCare’s centerpiece, a Medicare-like “public option,” would cause millions of Americans to lose their employer-provided health insurance.
Millions of Americans have already lost, or never had, employer-provided health insurance. Moreover, those who lose their employer-provided health insurance will be able to get insurance, regardless of their income or pre-existing conditions. A "public option" might cause some reduction in employer provided health care, but the figure cited (118 million) from the Lewin Group is absurdly high. Perhaps a consequence of the Lewin Group's status as a wholly-owned arm of the health care industry?
2. Government-run health care would lead to rationing.
Private health care has already led to rationing, but not on a rational basis. Denying care is the primary method of reducing costs practiced by private insurers. Right now, care is rationed based on ability to pay, and the decisions of insurance executives. Increased competition and choice does not preclude a public option, and a public option does not require a reduction in care to reduce costs - just a reduction in the profit motive as the primary driver of health care.
3. ObamaCare would cost a fortune, and we’re already running higher deficits than during the Great Depression.
ObamaCare would "bend the curve" in the long term, and make it possible for health care to survive the retiring boomers who would otherwise break it. We are running higher deficits than ever because the last eight years were a non-stop assault on the US economy and government. It takes a lot of money to repair the kind of damage done by the Bush administration.
Even so, ObamaCare will expand health coverage, reduce health care expenditures, and remove the long-term risk of insolvency in Medicare. Arbitrarily reducing deficits in the midst of a financial crisis is a proven loser.
4. ObamaCare would ruin private insurance.
ObamaCare does not ruin private insurance. It simply gives consumers another choice, and prevents gaps in coverage due to job loss or pre-existing conditions. The "public option" uses government to efficiently cover care for millions of Americans, as is currently done by Medicare. There is no evidence that a public option would reduce the quality of private care - it is much more likely that private competition will motivate improvements in care as private companies work to compete.
5. ObamaCare would encourage people to leave the medical profession.
This is absurd. People do not go into the medical profession as a way to make themselves rich - and if they do, they should not be encouraged. It is much more likely that employment in the health sector would be much higher, because with more people covered by insurance, there would be more people with access to care. There is no reason to believe that improved and expanded insurance coverage would be a deterrent to those interested in practicing medicine.
6. In addition to increasing deficits, ObamaCare would increase overall health costs.
Your "study" shows nothing about the overall costs of health care. You do not address any of the collateral benefits of having health coverage, and do not recognize the impact of demographics on program costs.
In short, you have no evidence. Your supposed evidence simply shows how private insurers can make a bigger profit by denying care to millions of Americans. That's not evidence of anything about overall health costs.
7. Based on Medicare’s track record, ObamaCare’s costs would almost certainly exceed estimates.
ObamaCare could exceed cost estimates by a very large margin and still be much more cost-effective than our current system.
8. ObamaCare would create a two-tiered health-care system, to the detriment of the middle class.
We already have a two-tiered health-care system, to the detriment of the middle and lower classes. The rich will always get whatever care they want, but for the middle class health reform would at least preserve access to care that is often jeopardized in our current system. There is again, no evidence that the middle class would suffer worse health under a public system, but plenty of evidence from overseas that public health care is more effective and efficient than our private system.
9. ObamaCare would kill the prospects for real reform.
No real reform has been forthcoming for some time - now is the best chance we will ever have. ObamaCare ends unfair practices that impact the uninsured, and encourages a more vibrant free market in which consumers can shop for value - for the best care, at the best prices. Rather than being excluded from care due to pre-existing conditions, or compelled to join the plan of an employer, under ObamaCare the choice would be restored to each of us.
ObamaCare is real reform.
10. The centralization of power in Washington saps the strength of our citizenry and slowly deprives us of liberty.
This is just a tag line to get folks interested in your "think-tank". Liberty without life is not very valuable - health care reform serves the general welfare, very much in keeping with the spirit of the founders. ObamaCare is about balancing the strength of the citizenry against the strength of private interests that currently are not serving the public interest.
Corporations have an obligation to be good citizens - if they cannot do so voluntarily, it is the place of government to set them straight. We the People grant the corporate charter, and have every right to revoke it.
We need ObamaCare.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Rationing in Oregon? Good
Without the public option, rationing is worse. To call the situation in Oregon as nightmare is to misunderstand the nature and extent of the issues with our health care system. Denial of care is much more common and insidious when practiced for profit. I’d take Oregon’s system over a purely private system any day.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
GOP not entertaining enough? That's laughable...
Apparently some folks here are too close to the comedy to see that the GOP itself has become an incredibly "entertaining" organization. I don't think this is the big problem that the GOP needs to address - as many other posters noted, there is lots of entertainment being produced with a right-wing perspective.
What is lacking is any principled opposition or constructive alternative to the Democratic agenda. The GOP is not losing in virtually all demographic groups because of a lack of entertainment value. It is losing because it does not speak to the very real concerns of the citizens of the USA.
The closing paragraph of this column encapsulates the GOP confusion:
Americans are "sick of politics", but not because they don't see how government and public policy matter - in fact, you have this one exactly backwards. People are sick of politics because they see precious little attention payed to governance and public policy, and far too much energy spent on divisive personal politics. A majority of Americans, when given the opportunity, have already demonstrated no desire to "come over to the conservative side in a decisive way". It is not because they are bored with the GOP. It is because the GOP has willfully and repeatedly failed to address the very real imperative to govern and manage public policy in keeping with the welfare of our nation.
Jon Stewart is not a news source for the youth of the USA solely because his show is entertaining. His show is also informative and insightful when it comes to the major policy issues of the day. The GOP has no answer to an honest debate on the issues. Focusing on the superficial has been the big problem, and will continue to be the problem, so long as the GOP fails to recognize political reality and address the very real concerns of voters.
What is lacking is any principled opposition or constructive alternative to the Democratic agenda. The GOP is not losing in virtually all demographic groups because of a lack of entertainment value. It is losing because it does not speak to the very real concerns of the citizens of the USA.
The closing paragraph of this column encapsulates the GOP confusion:
If conservatives want to win this battle, they need to put more energy into creating entertainment that strikes a responsive chord with the majority of Americans who are “sick of politics” because they don’t see how government and public policy matter to their lives. I believe that a majority of Americans, if they get a chance to see both sides of the argument presented in a way that entertains them, will come over to the conservative side in a decisive way. But conservatives have to make the effort. Right now, the left is winning the battle because they are creating entertainment — and the other side is just boring them.
Americans are "sick of politics", but not because they don't see how government and public policy matter - in fact, you have this one exactly backwards. People are sick of politics because they see precious little attention payed to governance and public policy, and far too much energy spent on divisive personal politics. A majority of Americans, when given the opportunity, have already demonstrated no desire to "come over to the conservative side in a decisive way". It is not because they are bored with the GOP. It is because the GOP has willfully and repeatedly failed to address the very real imperative to govern and manage public policy in keeping with the welfare of our nation.
Jon Stewart is not a news source for the youth of the USA solely because his show is entertaining. His show is also informative and insightful when it comes to the major policy issues of the day. The GOP has no answer to an honest debate on the issues. Focusing on the superficial has been the big problem, and will continue to be the problem, so long as the GOP fails to recognize political reality and address the very real concerns of voters.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Barking Wingnut - Jennifer Rubin
Given the complete lack of competence demonstrated by the previous administration, I am quite delighted and satisfied at the improvement that Obama represents.
Perhaps there is a competence gap between his campaign skills and his governance skills. With practice, his campaign skills proved to be stronger than anyone expected. I suspect his governance skills will likewise exceed the expectations of most observers.
Obama has taken deliberate and pragmatic action to implement his agenda, and has shown wisdom, flexibility and charm in the process. There will be compromises and setbacks, and there will be reversals and failures. This is not a surprise. Regardless, Obama will continue to advance his agenda, and will adapt and respond intelligently to the challenges he faces.
I would note that impugning Obama's competence is a pretty funny gambit coming from Jennifer Rubin. At least, if it weren't so sad, it would be funny.
Perhaps there is a competence gap between his campaign skills and his governance skills. With practice, his campaign skills proved to be stronger than anyone expected. I suspect his governance skills will likewise exceed the expectations of most observers.
Obama has taken deliberate and pragmatic action to implement his agenda, and has shown wisdom, flexibility and charm in the process. There will be compromises and setbacks, and there will be reversals and failures. This is not a surprise. Regardless, Obama will continue to advance his agenda, and will adapt and respond intelligently to the challenges he faces.
I would note that impugning Obama's competence is a pretty funny gambit coming from Jennifer Rubin. At least, if it weren't so sad, it would be funny.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Penny Pinching at the Pentagon
Ditching the F-22 to get moving on the F-35 is a prudent move. Reducing the explosion in Pentagon spending is necessary and Obama’s plan appears to do a very good job of setting priorities.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Individualism and the GOP
What many on the right fail to recognize, is that Obama is correct in his criticism of the USA, and that blindly attacking him for admitting the obvious only makes it clear that you don’t understand how America can overcome our faults.
This is not about Obama’s “ego” - it is about America’s ego.
I also disagree with the assertion that Conservatives shy away from mass movements. Conservatives are by and large members of organized religious groups, which provide a built-in social peer group. The true individualists are on the fringes of the left and right, fighting for libertarian and anarchist values. Conservatives are economic individualists, but far too many have become collectivist on social issues, in hopes of legislating their religious beliefs.
Conservatives simply ignore the massive amount of work required to maintain a grassroots movement, and therefore will continue to go without. Obama did the work, and is reaping the fruit of his labor. Best community organizer ever?
This is not about Obama’s “ego” - it is about America’s ego.
I also disagree with the assertion that Conservatives shy away from mass movements. Conservatives are by and large members of organized religious groups, which provide a built-in social peer group. The true individualists are on the fringes of the left and right, fighting for libertarian and anarchist values. Conservatives are economic individualists, but far too many have become collectivist on social issues, in hopes of legislating their religious beliefs.
Conservatives simply ignore the massive amount of work required to maintain a grassroots movement, and therefore will continue to go without. Obama did the work, and is reaping the fruit of his labor. Best community organizer ever?
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Elizabeth Scalia miffed at Notre Dame
Powers and principalities have always held human life cheap, and throughout history the Catholic Church has passionately, correctly, and consistently preached on the sanctity of life, at every stage.
If only this statement were true. The Catholic Church has passionately, ignorantly and consistently preached the sanctity of Catholic lives - and has repeatedly shown contempt for any other belief system. Throughout the centuries the Catholic Church has been the friend of the powers and principalities that have held human life cheap, and has asked only for the privilege of claiming the souls they have dispatched.
Obama should briefly and clearly state his position on the fundamental right to privacy, and the fundamental right to control of one’s own body. Catholics are entitled to their position on abortion - but our government was instituted in part to prevent them from making their position mandatory. Our nation was founded on freedom from such coercive government action.
Abortion is part of a fundamental right of all persons to control their own bodies. The Catholic Church has no right, and no moral standing, to change this.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Obama an "Evil Commie"?
I see a lot of paranoia here, but not much substance. What, precisely, has Obama done to indicate authoritarian tendencies? So far as I see, he is following well-established market principles in his efforts to prevent the collapse of capitalism.
All the over-the-top analogies only make Obama look more reasonable. Comparing Obama to Stalin is just more of the same absurd rhetoric that has become SOP on the right. So much for reasoned debate - let’s just demonize. It’s so much easier than actually crafting solutions. Right?
All the over-the-top analogies only make Obama look more reasonable. Comparing Obama to Stalin is just more of the same absurd rhetoric that has become SOP on the right. So much for reasoned debate - let’s just demonize. It’s so much easier than actually crafting solutions. Right?
Monday, April 6, 2009
Obama's European Debut
President Obama inherited a solo fight with the Taliban, massive federal deficits and debt, failed policies on Iran and North Korea, the neanderthal war, past terrible policies and unrestrained carbon emissions.
Obama’s ‘organizing of the world’ has not yet begun - this trip was simply laying the groundwork and feeling out his fellow leaders to see who is ready to tackle the problems facing the world.
Now Obama has more of the information he needs to formulate a unified strategy to conclude our row with the Taliban, rein in federal deficits, reduce the threat from rogue states, end the neanderthal war and move forward to address climate change and the rule of law. He will be able to lead the world by example and motivation, a nice change from the bravado and hypocrisy of the last administration. This is the change that we need.
Obama’s ‘organizing of the world’ has not yet begun - this trip was simply laying the groundwork and feeling out his fellow leaders to see who is ready to tackle the problems facing the world.
Now Obama has more of the information he needs to formulate a unified strategy to conclude our row with the Taliban, rein in federal deficits, reduce the threat from rogue states, end the neanderthal war and move forward to address climate change and the rule of law. He will be able to lead the world by example and motivation, a nice change from the bravado and hypocrisy of the last administration. This is the change that we need.
Friday, April 3, 2009
From Russia with Love
After Bush provided Russia a complete pass to wage war against their citizens and neighbors, Obama must be careful and deliberate while building the foundation for future criticism. Russia no longer takes us seriously, because for the past eight years, we have not been worthy of their respect, and barely worthy of their disdain.
Obama is a different kind of leader, who will not judge Russia so generously as Bush - and will take the time and effort to make sure we have leverage before acting.
Obama is a different kind of leader, who will not judge Russia so generously as Bush - and will take the time and effort to make sure we have leverage before acting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
