A Truly Egregious Windfall

The New York Times is editorializing on this windfall for home builders included in the legislation extending unemployment benefits and the tax refund for first-time homebuyers. I have to agree -- it seems that the home builders are benefiting enormously when they don't really need the money.

Blood in the Water: A $35 Trillion Problem

The sharks are circling -- instead of circling the wagons, as I recommended yesterday, the administration appears to be floating the idea of dropping the "public option." Because political reality has shifted to the right, thanks partly to misinformation and partly to legitimate objections to health care reform, the President has shifted his stance just a little bit. This will do little to appease the conservatives and the people who are really scared out there, but it may just enrage the left. Health care reform that works may need a public option; maybe we will see this eventually and add a public option after the other reforms are put into place. I like what Tom Daschle said on Meet the Press this morning:

keep in mind that over the next 10 years our country’s going to spend $35 trillion on health care. That’s the projection today. That $35 trillion dwarfs the trillion dollars we’re talking about as up-front costs that we have to, have to, to construct in order to put this new infrastructure in place—including, for the first time, covering 50 million new American insured. So I don’t think there’s any question that we can find, within $35 trillion, the savings necessary to come up with part of that cost for the new infrastructure. And I think the president’s plan is, is, is, is about right. It’s, it’s the balance between revenue on one side and cutting costs on the other.

Despite all the hesitations in there (he was speaking in the heat of debate), he is putting the "price tag" of reform in its proper context. $35 trillion is an unimaginable amount of money -- actually, $1 million is more than people can really fathom -- but if you think about it, that's actually a fairly good estimate of how much money we as a nation will spend on health care in ten years. This fact also makes it difficult for people to understand how they personally will be affected by reform -- most people have no idea how much their employer pays for health care insurance, much less how much the federal government would spend under any health care plan. When they hear $1 trillion as a price tag, it scares them, and rightly so. The problem has gotten so big that the President has to accept some changes to his blueprint in order to get any reform through. Let's see if this change makes any difference in the debate.

'Boots on the Ground' for Health Care

As promised, I went to my Congressperson's office yesterday and told them that I am in favor of health care reform, including a "public option." Strangely, the experience of being "on the record" about health care reform made me less enthusiastic, rather than more so. I can't really explain why, but the whole experience was pretty underwhelming. I even consented to be videotaped with my reasons why I'm in favor of health care reform, but I really don't think that video will be seen by anybody. Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I don't think that what I did will have that big of an impact.

Maybe I'm an idealistic pessimist -- a strange combination, but it explains a lot about me. Anyway, I still believe in health care reform, but I'm less die-hard than I was just a few days ago. There are many good ideas about how to improve the lives of Americans, and health care reform is a big, good idea. I just see it now getting bogged down in the nitty gritty of legislative work, and the campaign-style events the President is hosting are inspiring, but they leave a little of the hard work still to be done. My inner policy wonk is now saying, what about the details?

Does ObamaCare mean that Obama cares?

There is something worth asking in the silly debate over what to call health care reform -- "ObamaCare," "health insurance reform," or something else. The question is in the title of this post. First, some background. In labeling the program ObamaCare, conservatives are trying not only to tie the reform to the President, making him the face of reform while minimizing the importance of other players like Congress, but also to make it personal for people. "If you don't like Obama, you won't like ObamaCare," the conservatives are saying, "and if you don't like ObamaCare, you don't like the President." This messaging is effective, and it gets people riled up. Having effectively tied the President to the reform, the conservatives are now "going after" Congress with angry mobs. Liberals are trying to calm passions by referring to their efforts as "health insurance reform," pinning blame for problems on the insurance industry and trying to get credit for fixing those problems. The liberals have reached a fork in the road where their promises have to be met within the realm of political reality. Political reality is an ever-shifting bed of sand, not a fixed point, but the reality is that the President promised change, and now he is trying to deliver. My point of view is still one that hopes the President is really acting on behalf of average Americans -- that his approach and his proposals are firmly rooted in fixing problems with the system, not in political pandering or in some of the worst things he is accused of wanting. In other words, I don't think the President is out to kill old people and babies. Hardly a ringing endorsement, I know, but conservatives have yanked the debate about health care into an alarming arena of shouting matches and physical confrontation by stoking fears about change. Reasonable people can disagree, as my friend Garden Gal and others I have talked to about this issue probably do, but change is always hard, and I think this particular change is badly needed. Health care is simply too expensive in this country. Any program that can truly reverse the trend of rising health care costs, cover more Americans, and allow Americans to have choices in their health care is welcome in my book. Now, some may accuse me of believing the President's promises instead of the reality, but a comparison of the status quo and the reform proposals leads me to believe that this country can afford ObamaCare, should adopt the best possible reform that has a chance of passing Congress, and need not fear the majority of the problems that the conservatives are raising. I know I need to question Pres. Obama's motives more in this arena -- I know there has to be more to the story than just the good of the country, but something tells me that Pres. Obama wouldn't take on a fight of this magnitude if he didn't strongly believe it was necessary to bring the country onto a more solid footing.

Fawning over the President

This op-ed column from a British writer about President Obama's visit to London is funny and tongue-in-cheek. It puts the President's visit in surprisingly positive context. I enjoyed it thoroughly, although I'm not sure it's exactly accurate reportage.

President Obama -- the Face of GM?

This column by David Brooks of the New York Times got my juices flowing. Brooks' main premise is that President Obama has tread where he shouldn't get involved by forcing GM to restructure. I think Brooks is misreading Obama here. I think Obama's intention isn't to take over the car business. The federal government is loaning the car companies billions of dollars, and it has set itself up as an overseer of the car companies' demise. Bankruptcy may be the only way out, and Obama is trying to cushion the blow. Brooks takes the President to task for getting involved, but he really had no choice here. The ripple effect through the economy of the car companies' failures is still being felt, and the inevitable crash has to be mitigated somehow. A federal judge can parcel out people's livelihood against the obligations to creditors in bankruptcy court, or the American people can have a stake in the process through their elected representatives. I think Obama is making the best of a bad situation. Still, it didn't stop me from seeing this cartoon as funny.

Catching heat

President Obama seems to be taking heat from all corners right about now, so I thought I'd give him some praise. I like the fact that he's issued executive orders overturning most of the legal cover provided by Bush administration for what amounts to torture of terror suspects. I like the fact that he's reached out to Iran without softening the stance too much, and I like the fact that he's asking Iran to change its rhetoric. I like the fact that he held a prime-time press conference and took it to the Republicans over the stimulus bill. The alternative is the status quo, which is needless to say unacceptable. I like the fact that he's traveled to Arizona. Take it to John McCain's home state! I'm looking forward to an energetic Presidency that doesn't forget the little guy.

$850 billion?

Pres-elect Obama's team is floating the idea of a $670 to $770 billion stimulus package, which they expected could grow to $850 billion, in discussions with the Washington Post. Here's the story. I don't know about you, but that sounds like an awful lot of money to me. I know the economy's in a pretty negative down cycle, and the American consumer has reached the limit of its credit cards. So what's the government to do but try to replace consumers as the main engine of economic growth? The problem is, the government doesn't have the money to spend, either. This program may be an extremely smart gamble, but it's still a gamble with taxpayer dollars and is likely to be unpopular, especially at first. Benefits may trickle down, especially to a state like Nevada that could use some federal help to solve its own budget woes. I doubt Obama will get much credit from Nevadans, though, for saving Medicaid for our state. This much money has the potential to reshape the country, just as FDR did, for a long time to come. Social security, after all, was invented in the 1930s. It probably will come to an end in the 2030s because we won't be able to support it with tax dollars from my generation. I'm trying to avoid a knee-jerk reaction that says Yikes to spending that much money. I hope the details are worked out to make this truly an achievement along the lines of the New Deal, as opposed to a fiasco.

The tilt of Obama's head

People like Anna Deavere Smith who read into political gestures like Bill Clinton's "thumb pointing" may well have some work to do in explaining Obama's characteristic tilt of the head. It represents what some may see as arrogance, others as confidence. The above picture captures it well. It's interesting -- Obama is rather tall, so he doesn't have to look up at anyone. He looks up because he wants to, so it is a symbol of confidence. Also, it symbolizes looking forward to the future, doesn't it? There's a lot to say about the way Obama carries himself -- it's not all positive.