Second goal of politics: Win re-election.
Final goal of politics: When all else fails, do something.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Privacy
They do it, too!
Surprise! Your phone logs are available to police and government. Anyone who watches the Law & Order TV series knows cops do this all the time, and can track how many calls were made from number X to number Y on any given day or week, and how long each call lasted. This is not to say they monitor the content, and listen in on who said what to whom. Such monitoring (supposedly) requires a warrant from a court. Even so, it's done, as is the hacking into email and other electronic communication. The defense is that such tactics are needed during investigations.
Similar arguments are used in defense of international tracking of communication logs of political leaders worldwide. The latest media storm is over allegations that the U.S. government is doing this to leaders of other governments, including Germany, France, Spain, Brazil and others.
This latest revelation comes after the news that Washington has been tracking the phone records of major American telecommunications companies for years., in the name of looking for patterns of communication among known or potential terrorists.
It seems that telecoms routinely allow investigators access to millions upon millions of communication records. Supposedly without listening in or monitoring the content, but only looking for patterns.
So far, such tracking has been legal, at least in the U.S. In other countries, however, privacy laws are much more strict, and such tactics are illegal. And legal in one country doesn't always mean legal in another.
The issue, then, is not whether communication monitoring is being done, but should it be done.
Surprise! Your phone logs are available to police and government. Anyone who watches the Law & Order TV series knows cops do this all the time, and can track how many calls were made from number X to number Y on any given day or week, and how long each call lasted. This is not to say they monitor the content, and listen in on who said what to whom. Such monitoring (supposedly) requires a warrant from a court. Even so, it's done, as is the hacking into email and other electronic communication. The defense is that such tactics are needed during investigations.
Similar arguments are used in defense of international tracking of communication logs of political leaders worldwide. The latest media storm is over allegations that the U.S. government is doing this to leaders of other governments, including Germany, France, Spain, Brazil and others.
This latest revelation comes after the news that Washington has been tracking the phone records of major American telecommunications companies for years., in the name of looking for patterns of communication among known or potential terrorists.
It seems that telecoms routinely allow investigators access to millions upon millions of communication records. Supposedly without listening in or monitoring the content, but only looking for patterns.
So far, such tracking has been legal, at least in the U.S. In other countries, however, privacy laws are much more strict, and such tactics are illegal. And legal in one country doesn't always mean legal in another.
The issue, then, is not whether communication monitoring is being done, but should it be done.
Eavesdropping
Even the walls have ears. -- Ancient Proverb
"You can't eavesdrop," said the lawyer on the street corner as he talked with his client.
"There are no eaves on the street," replied a bystander. "If you want privacy, go to a private place. Besides, what makes you think I care?"
A corporate executive let loose some stinging comments in the outer office, which were heard by a reporter who happened to be chatting with the staff.
When the reporter called later for context, the executive said, "You can't use that; I thought you were one of the secretaries."
"You thought wrong," said the reporter. "It was a public place, you said it, I heard it, and therefore I can use it."
What makes officials oblivious to the idea that loud conversation in a railway car, for example, can be heard five rows away?
That happened last week to a high government official whose comments were heard by another passenger, who then transmitted them to the world via his mobile device. What's more, one would expect that the official, formerly with the CIA and the National Security Agency, would know better, especially since many security operatives are borderline paranoid anyway.
Keep in mind that loud talking in a public place can be heard and forwarded by anyone. And with today's mobile devices, what is said can go worldwide instantly.
"You can't eavesdrop," said the lawyer on the street corner as he talked with his client.
"There are no eaves on the street," replied a bystander. "If you want privacy, go to a private place. Besides, what makes you think I care?"
A corporate executive let loose some stinging comments in the outer office, which were heard by a reporter who happened to be chatting with the staff.
When the reporter called later for context, the executive said, "You can't use that; I thought you were one of the secretaries."
"You thought wrong," said the reporter. "It was a public place, you said it, I heard it, and therefore I can use it."
What makes officials oblivious to the idea that loud conversation in a railway car, for example, can be heard five rows away?
That happened last week to a high government official whose comments were heard by another passenger, who then transmitted them to the world via his mobile device. What's more, one would expect that the official, formerly with the CIA and the National Security Agency, would know better, especially since many security operatives are borderline paranoid anyway.
Keep in mind that loud talking in a public place can be heard and forwarded by anyone. And with today's mobile devices, what is said can go worldwide instantly.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Hypocrisy
"See I told you it wouldn't work." -- Roddy Righteous, after sabotaging the health care rollout.
Radical conservatives ranted on the problems in setting up the federal health insurance exchange after doing all they could to block, hinder, damage, interfere with and sabotage the program from the beginning.
The irony is that these guys come from the party of Big Business. The new federal law requires that everyone have health insurance. It doesn't matter where you get it, but you must have it, and there are now minimum requirements for a plan.
But the federal law -- the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare -- is not itself an insurance program but a marketplace intended to help you buy an insurance policy from private companies. It's not like Social Security or unemployment compensation, which are government-run insurance programs. And if you already have health insurance, through your job, privately, or you're on Medicare or Medicaid, you're covered and the new program doesn't affect you. The current media and political firestorm is just background noise.
Reality check: This is a major business opportunity for insurance companies, and in some regions where there is little or no competition, policy premiums are high. Moreover, the law mandates that everyone -- even the young and healthy, who feel they don't need it -- have coverage.
Basic to the concept of insurance is that the more people buy into it, the better it works, because the risk of payout is more widespread. If only sick people pay into the pool, the pay-out and therefore the pay-in will be higher.
So why are Republicans so down on Obamacare? Because they're not getting the political credit for setting up national health insurance. The federal government in Washington has been trying for nearly 80 years to put in place health insurance for everyone. But each time, it was blocked by the opposing party. Until now. And they're still trying to block it, even though it was passed by Congress, signed by the President, and approved by the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the people who most need health insurance can't afford it.
Historically, what happens to people in situations like this?
They die a lot.
Radical conservatives ranted on the problems in setting up the federal health insurance exchange after doing all they could to block, hinder, damage, interfere with and sabotage the program from the beginning.
The irony is that these guys come from the party of Big Business. The new federal law requires that everyone have health insurance. It doesn't matter where you get it, but you must have it, and there are now minimum requirements for a plan.
But the federal law -- the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare -- is not itself an insurance program but a marketplace intended to help you buy an insurance policy from private companies. It's not like Social Security or unemployment compensation, which are government-run insurance programs. And if you already have health insurance, through your job, privately, or you're on Medicare or Medicaid, you're covered and the new program doesn't affect you. The current media and political firestorm is just background noise.
Reality check: This is a major business opportunity for insurance companies, and in some regions where there is little or no competition, policy premiums are high. Moreover, the law mandates that everyone -- even the young and healthy, who feel they don't need it -- have coverage.
Basic to the concept of insurance is that the more people buy into it, the better it works, because the risk of payout is more widespread. If only sick people pay into the pool, the pay-out and therefore the pay-in will be higher.
So why are Republicans so down on Obamacare? Because they're not getting the political credit for setting up national health insurance. The federal government in Washington has been trying for nearly 80 years to put in place health insurance for everyone. But each time, it was blocked by the opposing party. Until now. And they're still trying to block it, even though it was passed by Congress, signed by the President, and approved by the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the people who most need health insurance can't afford it.
Historically, what happens to people in situations like this?
They die a lot.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Relapse
Economic recovery is being stalled by aftershocks of the American government shutdown as well as continuing efforts by arch-conservatives to block all things Demobama.
Job growth in the U.S. is still slow, according to the latest figures -- delayed by the shutdown -- and unemployment, while marginally lower -- it's down one-tenth of one percent, to 7.2 percent -- is still too high to be encouraging.
Home sales are off, said the National Association of Realtors, and other economic indicators are not reassuring.
Wall Street investors, however, like the idea that the Federal Reserve will likely continue to pump money into the financial system in its continuing effort to heal economic sickness.
And worldwide, other nations are feeling the fallout from the American storm.
The diagnosis was right. Big banks got sick from overindulgence in risky investments and heavy doses of liquidity brought them back to health. However, many of them held onto the medicine to keep up their own vital statistics, without passing on the benefits of available funds to customers and consumers, thus slowing the general economic recovery.
Then came the shutdown, which cut off salary cash flow to 800,000 federal employees, as well as blocking funds that would otherwise have been spent by millions of others.
Experts have estimated that this episode canceled out what would have been a big chunk of production (GDP) for the 16 days of the shutdown.
Meanwhile, that hiccup in American GDP will amplify so that the rest of the world will hit an economic sour note.
Add to that the Federal Reserve Board's latest move to strengthen its rules on liquidity for large, "internationally active banking organizations and systemically important non-bank financial companies." This is good, in that it would help prevent another meltdown such as happened five years ago. But if banks are forced to keep more cash on hand, that will mean less going out in loans to finance business operations.
So does all this mean an economic relapse for the U.S.? Consider these items:
* Housing sales fell 1.9 percent in September, due to rising prices and higher mortgage rates.
* The unemployment rate has barely moved all summer, sitting at 7.2 percent in September. The only good perspective is to say it has been ticking down by one-tenth of a point each month this year.
* Job growth has been disappointing. The nation added just 148,000 jobs in September.
* Exports of goods and services plateaued, even before the shutdown. The Commerce Department reported a total value of $189.2 billion in exports in August, slightly lower than the $189.3 billion in July; and that was lower than the June figure of $190.5 billion.
* That meant a rise in the trade deficit to $38.8 billion in August, compared to $38.6 billion in July.
* On the whole, exports were off by 0.1 percent, and imports were virtually unchanged, the government said.
* American adults rank third in literacy, numeracy and problem solving, behind Japan and Finland, according to a Census Bureau report.
* Inflation -- a standard measure of rising prices -- slowed to 1.5 percent in August, down from 2.0 percent, according to a survey by the International Monetary Fund.
* Worldwide, in the 20 largest industrialized countries, inflation slowed to an annual rate of 3.0 percent in August, the IMF said, down from 3.2 percent the month before.
So with trade slowing, production static, job growth crawling, and consumer prices dipping -- a common phenomenon during recessions -- there's a good chance that America is facing a bumpy economic road.
And with the austerity drumbeat getting louder, those on the high road to prosperity may be detoured to an economic swamp.
Job growth in the U.S. is still slow, according to the latest figures -- delayed by the shutdown -- and unemployment, while marginally lower -- it's down one-tenth of one percent, to 7.2 percent -- is still too high to be encouraging.
Home sales are off, said the National Association of Realtors, and other economic indicators are not reassuring.
Wall Street investors, however, like the idea that the Federal Reserve will likely continue to pump money into the financial system in its continuing effort to heal economic sickness.
And worldwide, other nations are feeling the fallout from the American storm.
The diagnosis was right. Big banks got sick from overindulgence in risky investments and heavy doses of liquidity brought them back to health. However, many of them held onto the medicine to keep up their own vital statistics, without passing on the benefits of available funds to customers and consumers, thus slowing the general economic recovery.
Then came the shutdown, which cut off salary cash flow to 800,000 federal employees, as well as blocking funds that would otherwise have been spent by millions of others.
Experts have estimated that this episode canceled out what would have been a big chunk of production (GDP) for the 16 days of the shutdown.
Meanwhile, that hiccup in American GDP will amplify so that the rest of the world will hit an economic sour note.
Add to that the Federal Reserve Board's latest move to strengthen its rules on liquidity for large, "internationally active banking organizations and systemically important non-bank financial companies." This is good, in that it would help prevent another meltdown such as happened five years ago. But if banks are forced to keep more cash on hand, that will mean less going out in loans to finance business operations.
So does all this mean an economic relapse for the U.S.? Consider these items:
* Housing sales fell 1.9 percent in September, due to rising prices and higher mortgage rates.
* The unemployment rate has barely moved all summer, sitting at 7.2 percent in September. The only good perspective is to say it has been ticking down by one-tenth of a point each month this year.
* Job growth has been disappointing. The nation added just 148,000 jobs in September.
* Exports of goods and services plateaued, even before the shutdown. The Commerce Department reported a total value of $189.2 billion in exports in August, slightly lower than the $189.3 billion in July; and that was lower than the June figure of $190.5 billion.
* That meant a rise in the trade deficit to $38.8 billion in August, compared to $38.6 billion in July.
* On the whole, exports were off by 0.1 percent, and imports were virtually unchanged, the government said.
* American adults rank third in literacy, numeracy and problem solving, behind Japan and Finland, according to a Census Bureau report.
* Inflation -- a standard measure of rising prices -- slowed to 1.5 percent in August, down from 2.0 percent, according to a survey by the International Monetary Fund.
* Worldwide, in the 20 largest industrialized countries, inflation slowed to an annual rate of 3.0 percent in August, the IMF said, down from 3.2 percent the month before.
So with trade slowing, production static, job growth crawling, and consumer prices dipping -- a common phenomenon during recessions -- there's a good chance that America is facing a bumpy economic road.
And with the austerity drumbeat getting louder, those on the high road to prosperity may be detoured to an economic swamp.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Glitch Bypass
With all the noise about the online blockage for the new health care marketplace, you'd think that using a computer for access to the Internet was the only way to sign up. It's not.
From Day One there were, and are, alternate -- if old-fashioned -- ways to get information on affordable health care plans. And we can fault the media for not pointing out the other ways.
What are these ways? Telephone, the U.S. Mail, and in person at a government office. But for all the drumbeat from Obamaphobes and their opposition to the Affordable Care Act -- aided and abetted by TV talk show hosts and news shows -- many potential consumers didn't even bother. Moreover, the computer blockage was to the federal website. Computer marketplaces operated by several states worked quite well, and while there was a flood of applicants, the systems were not overwhelmed.
But as an editor we once knew would put it, "The system is clogged. That's a great story."
Reporter's reply: "There are three other ways to get information, telephone, in person and by mail. We should report that."
Editor: "I know, but that's not a story. A story is that the system's broken, not how to work around it."
Now, three weeks after the health care marketplace opened, news media are finally reporting alternate ways to cope with a troubled but legal and obligatory system. That should have been done in the beginning. Instead, television news shows became megaphones for the opposition.
Political activists are very good at manipulating the media system, so that whoever shouts loudest gets the most exposure for their views, no matter how far out they are.
Too often, in the name of providing "balanced" coverage, news editors and reporters give equal time and space to every side of an issue, even to those holding discredited views whose only qualification is a loud mouth.
From Day One there were, and are, alternate -- if old-fashioned -- ways to get information on affordable health care plans. And we can fault the media for not pointing out the other ways.
What are these ways? Telephone, the U.S. Mail, and in person at a government office. But for all the drumbeat from Obamaphobes and their opposition to the Affordable Care Act -- aided and abetted by TV talk show hosts and news shows -- many potential consumers didn't even bother. Moreover, the computer blockage was to the federal website. Computer marketplaces operated by several states worked quite well, and while there was a flood of applicants, the systems were not overwhelmed.
But as an editor we once knew would put it, "The system is clogged. That's a great story."
Reporter's reply: "There are three other ways to get information, telephone, in person and by mail. We should report that."
Editor: "I know, but that's not a story. A story is that the system's broken, not how to work around it."
Now, three weeks after the health care marketplace opened, news media are finally reporting alternate ways to cope with a troubled but legal and obligatory system. That should have been done in the beginning. Instead, television news shows became megaphones for the opposition.
Political activists are very good at manipulating the media system, so that whoever shouts loudest gets the most exposure for their views, no matter how far out they are.
Too often, in the name of providing "balanced" coverage, news editors and reporters give equal time and space to every side of an issue, even to those holding discredited views whose only qualification is a loud mouth.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Mood Conditions
"If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas." -- John Boehner
If ifs and ans were pots and pans, we'd have no need of tinkers. -- Old Irish Saying
"An it be so, it were a grievous fault, and grievously hath Caesar answered it." -- Shakespeare.
Many claim not to understand the subjunctive, and maintain they don't use it. But they do use it, even when they are not aware that they are. Among fluent and native speakers, it's almost instinctive, a mode of speech acquired along with the language at an early age.
Experts have long known that people internalize the rules of grammar of their native language by the age of six, and from there they learn the exceptions. When they get to school and are told the rules in a classroom setting, they are really only given labels for things they already know. One of these is the subjunctive, and the reason so many don't understand the rules is that they were poorly taught.
In two of the above italicized examples, the word "an" is no more than an early form of "if." Knowing that brings sense to the entire sentence.
But to the point: The term "subjunctive" is derived from two elements meaning "joined under," and refers to the necessity that one part is conditional to another, usually designated by the word "if." Not always, however. Would it were so. (There, that's a short sentence in the subjunctive.) Attentive readers will find the subjunctive mode often in these postings.
Enjoy the search.
If ifs and ans were pots and pans, we'd have no need of tinkers. -- Old Irish Saying
"An it be so, it were a grievous fault, and grievously hath Caesar answered it." -- Shakespeare.
Many claim not to understand the subjunctive, and maintain they don't use it. But they do use it, even when they are not aware that they are. Among fluent and native speakers, it's almost instinctive, a mode of speech acquired along with the language at an early age.
Experts have long known that people internalize the rules of grammar of their native language by the age of six, and from there they learn the exceptions. When they get to school and are told the rules in a classroom setting, they are really only given labels for things they already know. One of these is the subjunctive, and the reason so many don't understand the rules is that they were poorly taught.
In two of the above italicized examples, the word "an" is no more than an early form of "if." Knowing that brings sense to the entire sentence.
But to the point: The term "subjunctive" is derived from two elements meaning "joined under," and refers to the necessity that one part is conditional to another, usually designated by the word "if." Not always, however. Would it were so. (There, that's a short sentence in the subjunctive.) Attentive readers will find the subjunctive mode often in these postings.
Enjoy the search.
Diversity and Inclusion
There is always a choice
Diversity is good. Inclusion is better. One advantage of living in an urban area is the ability to enjoy a diversity of people and cultures, whether those differences are expressed in language, art, music, literature, politics, religion or outlook on life.
Some folks, of course, prefer the comfort of a group, where many or most of the members have similar cultural, linguistic, social or racial backgrounds. This, however, denies the advantage of diversity. But groups can also include diversity as part of their ethos.
Consider the overall benefits of doing both: Participating in a group of alikes as well as spicing your life with the variety of sampling the pleasures of the non-alikes.
Diversity is good. Inclusion is better. One advantage of living in an urban area is the ability to enjoy a diversity of people and cultures, whether those differences are expressed in language, art, music, literature, politics, religion or outlook on life.
Some folks, of course, prefer the comfort of a group, where many or most of the members have similar cultural, linguistic, social or racial backgrounds. This, however, denies the advantage of diversity. But groups can also include diversity as part of their ethos.
Consider the overall benefits of doing both: Participating in a group of alikes as well as spicing your life with the variety of sampling the pleasures of the non-alikes.
Dude, Be Obscure
If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do.
Oratory uses rhetoric to sell a concept; that is, to persuade others to agree with whatever is the message of the day, whether it be political, religious or a product for sale.
Speakers skilled in the techniques of rhetoric use fact and suggestion to imply a conclusion. They build on a strong base of beliefs held by the audience, then start them on a rhetorical road and wait for them to infer a conclusion.
When done right, the speaker leads the audience to jump to a desired conclusion, sparing the speaker the risk of saying it directly. That way, if there is a negative backlash from a larger population, the speaker can deny having said anything negative. The speaker can claim he is not responsible for erroneous conclusions and opinions made by those in the audience.
What's better? Brevity. Say what you have to say, be done with it and stop. Longer is not necessarily better. An editor once said, "If you can't tell the story in 500 words, you can't tell it. And the story hasn't been written that can't be cut."
Politics today seems to be more of a shouting match than anything else. It's a competition to see who can talk longer, louder and say less than the other guy. It's more an appeal to emotion than to reason. That, of course, is one of the techniques of rhetoric, to appeal to emotion. One of the slogans of the Barry Goldwater presidential campaign was, "In your heart, you know he's right." However, many people vote from the head, not the heart.
In the first Nixon-Kennedy presidential debate, those who heard it on radio felt Nixon won, while those who watched on television said Kennedy won. That's an example of image defeating reason.
Smart campaigners use all the techniques of rhetoric and persuasion: especially image, reason and emotion, and tailor their message to the preferences of whoever the audience of the day is.
Oratory uses rhetoric to sell a concept; that is, to persuade others to agree with whatever is the message of the day, whether it be political, religious or a product for sale.
Speakers skilled in the techniques of rhetoric use fact and suggestion to imply a conclusion. They build on a strong base of beliefs held by the audience, then start them on a rhetorical road and wait for them to infer a conclusion.
When done right, the speaker leads the audience to jump to a desired conclusion, sparing the speaker the risk of saying it directly. That way, if there is a negative backlash from a larger population, the speaker can deny having said anything negative. The speaker can claim he is not responsible for erroneous conclusions and opinions made by those in the audience.
What's better? Brevity. Say what you have to say, be done with it and stop. Longer is not necessarily better. An editor once said, "If you can't tell the story in 500 words, you can't tell it. And the story hasn't been written that can't be cut."
Politics today seems to be more of a shouting match than anything else. It's a competition to see who can talk longer, louder and say less than the other guy. It's more an appeal to emotion than to reason. That, of course, is one of the techniques of rhetoric, to appeal to emotion. One of the slogans of the Barry Goldwater presidential campaign was, "In your heart, you know he's right." However, many people vote from the head, not the heart.
In the first Nixon-Kennedy presidential debate, those who heard it on radio felt Nixon won, while those who watched on television said Kennedy won. That's an example of image defeating reason.
Smart campaigners use all the techniques of rhetoric and persuasion: especially image, reason and emotion, and tailor their message to the preferences of whoever the audience of the day is.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Ted Offensive
When all else fails, do it again. And again. And again. And again.
That way madness lies.
Be reasonable; do it my way.
Even when you know that truth, fact and reality don't conform to your preconceived notions of what is right, keep going, because that's the road to power. Keep swimming against the tide in the belief that eventually, the tide will turn. And yes, the tide will turn, and you will be swept out to sea, alone.
For Sen. Ted Cruz, the tide has changed, and old hands in the Senate will find ways to isolate the freshman senator to desert islands of subcommittees, where those with no seniority are stranded, with no voice.
Meanwhile, the TV cameras and microphones will move on to the next mouth, to the next flashy topic roused by the next flashy speaker.
Sen. Cruz is a fine orator. He has a strong, pleasant, clear voice, with a confident manner and delivery, calculated to rouse the faithful into following his lead. However, no matter how convincing his manner and how assuring his delivery, sometimes he's just plain wrong.
Keep in mind that half-truths can equal whole lies, when part of the information is left out and the context is incomplete.
Example: Yesterday, Sen. Cruz repeated his charge that UPS had canceled spousal health insurance for 15,000 of its employees because of Obamacare, thus implying that all those people will be without health insurance. He left unsaid the fact that these spouses are employed elsewhere, and already have health insurance through their own employers, so there was no need for duplication.
Hammering away at a half truth is an old technique that demagogues have used for generations.
That way madness lies.
Be reasonable; do it my way.
Even when you know that truth, fact and reality don't conform to your preconceived notions of what is right, keep going, because that's the road to power. Keep swimming against the tide in the belief that eventually, the tide will turn. And yes, the tide will turn, and you will be swept out to sea, alone.
For Sen. Ted Cruz, the tide has changed, and old hands in the Senate will find ways to isolate the freshman senator to desert islands of subcommittees, where those with no seniority are stranded, with no voice.
Meanwhile, the TV cameras and microphones will move on to the next mouth, to the next flashy topic roused by the next flashy speaker.
Sen. Cruz is a fine orator. He has a strong, pleasant, clear voice, with a confident manner and delivery, calculated to rouse the faithful into following his lead. However, no matter how convincing his manner and how assuring his delivery, sometimes he's just plain wrong.
Keep in mind that half-truths can equal whole lies, when part of the information is left out and the context is incomplete.
Example: Yesterday, Sen. Cruz repeated his charge that UPS had canceled spousal health insurance for 15,000 of its employees because of Obamacare, thus implying that all those people will be without health insurance. He left unsaid the fact that these spouses are employed elsewhere, and already have health insurance through their own employers, so there was no need for duplication.
Hammering away at a half truth is an old technique that demagogues have used for generations.
The Riley Factor
"My head's made up. You can't confuse me with the facts." -- Chester A. Riley
Demagogues succeed only so long as they have an audience. These days, news media enable demagogues by providing microphones and cameras for their rantings.
Politicians learn early in their careers how to manipulate the media for maximum exposure for their views. To the extent that radio, television and print media provide a platform, they are demagogue enablers.
Unplug the microphone and turn off the camera, and the demagogue is silenced. Further, when reporters and editors ignore the speechifying, they serve as news filters, separating the valuable from the dross.
Conservatives are fond of saying they speak for the American people. Reality check: They speak for some, not all. One member of the House of Representatives speaks for one faction of one party in one district in one state as part of one part of the Congress in one branch of government.
That person does not and cannot speak for all Americans, because that person does not represent all Americans.
Demagogues succeed only so long as they have an audience. These days, news media enable demagogues by providing microphones and cameras for their rantings.
Politicians learn early in their careers how to manipulate the media for maximum exposure for their views. To the extent that radio, television and print media provide a platform, they are demagogue enablers.
Unplug the microphone and turn off the camera, and the demagogue is silenced. Further, when reporters and editors ignore the speechifying, they serve as news filters, separating the valuable from the dross.
Conservatives are fond of saying they speak for the American people. Reality check: They speak for some, not all. One member of the House of Representatives speaks for one faction of one party in one district in one state as part of one part of the Congress in one branch of government.
That person does not and cannot speak for all Americans, because that person does not represent all Americans.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Collusion or Corrosion
Do news media collude with governmental officials to degrade the quality of political debate? Or do they corrode the party "message" by asking sharp questions?
The answers depend largely on what side you're on.
Some will say the Fox News Channel, with its lineup of conservative commentators, are in collusion with the Republican Party.
Others will maintain that MSNBC, with its liberal commentators, are allied with the Democratic Party.
Here's another aspect to the question: Do candidates resent the more independent news stations because they don't play along with party strategy?
But should they?
Conservatives are fond of lambasting the "media elite" who, they claim, don't really represent the American people. They toss around insulting phrases like "the lamestream media," and those reporters and interviewers who strive for neutrality and don't parrot the party line are dismissed as incompetent, at best, or enemies at worst.
Some observers take it as a given that "politicians lie." That may or may not be the case, but when dealing with two sides to a story, there is certainly conflict, and one set of informational views will contradict another.
As one young reporter once asked, "Did you ever get the feeling when you're interviewing people that one of them is lying?"
"Of course," replied the editor. "Maybe they both are. But it's not our job to decide that. Our job is to present both sides and let the reader decide."
Good reporters are neither advocates nor adversaries. They ask the tough questions because they need to be asked.
The answers depend largely on what side you're on.
Some will say the Fox News Channel, with its lineup of conservative commentators, are in collusion with the Republican Party.
Others will maintain that MSNBC, with its liberal commentators, are allied with the Democratic Party.
Here's another aspect to the question: Do candidates resent the more independent news stations because they don't play along with party strategy?
But should they?
Conservatives are fond of lambasting the "media elite" who, they claim, don't really represent the American people. They toss around insulting phrases like "the lamestream media," and those reporters and interviewers who strive for neutrality and don't parrot the party line are dismissed as incompetent, at best, or enemies at worst.
Some observers take it as a given that "politicians lie." That may or may not be the case, but when dealing with two sides to a story, there is certainly conflict, and one set of informational views will contradict another.
As one young reporter once asked, "Did you ever get the feeling when you're interviewing people that one of them is lying?"
"Of course," replied the editor. "Maybe they both are. But it's not our job to decide that. Our job is to present both sides and let the reader decide."
Good reporters are neither advocates nor adversaries. They ask the tough questions because they need to be asked.
News Biz Shakeout
The Times, it is a-changing. Also the Washington Post, the Philadelphia Inquirer and dozens of others.
Daily newspapers are trimming and consolidating their operations as they search for ways to keep up their financial strength and readership, as well as maintain their influence on advertisers, politicians and consumers.
The heyday of William Randolph Hearst may be long gone, but you wouldn't know it from the shenanigans in Philadelphia as new owners fight each other over control of the newsroom. At stake is whether the editor decides how to handle news stories or whether an owner dictates which of his political cronies gets favorable coverage. The Inquirer has had five owners in the past seven years, and the current batch has fired the editor twice in the past year.
Meanwhile, the new owner of the Washington Post -- Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon -- has promised editorial independence for the newspaper as the parent company goes off seeking new business opportunities in the Digital Age.
The New York Times has rebranded its international edition, for decades published jointly with the Washington Post as the International Herald Tribune. It's now the International New York Times, and its formerly independent news staff has been folded into the directorship of New York-based editors.
The recession also hit hard at some newspapers, forcing them to drop Saturday editions. For some papers, Saturday publication was largely a public service. A few papers have gone further, to publishing only three or four days a week, focusing on days when advertising was big.
Monday remains a big sports news day, carrying reports on weekend high school, college and professional games, and Thursday and Friday are big days for advertisers hoping to stimulate weekend shopping.
All this in the context of competition from broadcast and cable television news operations, mobile devices carrying flash news reports, and Internet chat rooms with instant commentary and opinion.
But there are still many folks who are too busy to stay glued to computer screens and mobile devices all day, and others who either do not have computers, do not want them or do not know how to use them. And for these and many others, there is the time and opportunity to wait for background information and thoughtful analysis pieces, largely in print media.
And, of course, for those who want to know what the local board of education and town council are doing with their tax dollars, plus how well the local police and fire departments are protecting their towns, there are the small daily and weekly newspapers. For them, advertising revenue from local merchants who neither need nor can afford the massive exposure of metro dailies remains their prime support.
As for the metro dailies, they will find new ways to live long and prosper.
Daily newspapers are trimming and consolidating their operations as they search for ways to keep up their financial strength and readership, as well as maintain their influence on advertisers, politicians and consumers.
The heyday of William Randolph Hearst may be long gone, but you wouldn't know it from the shenanigans in Philadelphia as new owners fight each other over control of the newsroom. At stake is whether the editor decides how to handle news stories or whether an owner dictates which of his political cronies gets favorable coverage. The Inquirer has had five owners in the past seven years, and the current batch has fired the editor twice in the past year.
Meanwhile, the new owner of the Washington Post -- Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon -- has promised editorial independence for the newspaper as the parent company goes off seeking new business opportunities in the Digital Age.
The New York Times has rebranded its international edition, for decades published jointly with the Washington Post as the International Herald Tribune. It's now the International New York Times, and its formerly independent news staff has been folded into the directorship of New York-based editors.
The recession also hit hard at some newspapers, forcing them to drop Saturday editions. For some papers, Saturday publication was largely a public service. A few papers have gone further, to publishing only three or four days a week, focusing on days when advertising was big.
Monday remains a big sports news day, carrying reports on weekend high school, college and professional games, and Thursday and Friday are big days for advertisers hoping to stimulate weekend shopping.
All this in the context of competition from broadcast and cable television news operations, mobile devices carrying flash news reports, and Internet chat rooms with instant commentary and opinion.
But there are still many folks who are too busy to stay glued to computer screens and mobile devices all day, and others who either do not have computers, do not want them or do not know how to use them. And for these and many others, there is the time and opportunity to wait for background information and thoughtful analysis pieces, largely in print media.
And, of course, for those who want to know what the local board of education and town council are doing with their tax dollars, plus how well the local police and fire departments are protecting their towns, there are the small daily and weekly newspapers. For them, advertising revenue from local merchants who neither need nor can afford the massive exposure of metro dailies remains their prime support.
As for the metro dailies, they will find new ways to live long and prosper.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Shutdown Goes Viral
Stop the madness now.
A viral disease of shortsightedness has spread across the political spectrum, setting up America as the first to fall victim to the sickness.
And the economic sneeze, already infectng small business throughout America, has started to spread and will soon reach epidemic status, much as the Great Depression caused a worldwide catastrophe, only to end with World War II, as nations jump-started their munitions industries.
Few today can remember those days of unemployment, hunger and the violence of war, and none do so fondly.
Will it take another Great Crash for politicians to wake up? Will it take another war to rescue the world from economic madness, only to deliver it to military madness?
A viral disease of shortsightedness has spread across the political spectrum, setting up America as the first to fall victim to the sickness.
And the economic sneeze, already infectng small business throughout America, has started to spread and will soon reach epidemic status, much as the Great Depression caused a worldwide catastrophe, only to end with World War II, as nations jump-started their munitions industries.
Few today can remember those days of unemployment, hunger and the violence of war, and none do so fondly.
Will it take another Great Crash for politicians to wake up? Will it take another war to rescue the world from economic madness, only to deliver it to military madness?
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Shutdown Dominoes
"This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper." -- T.S. Eliot
As the government runs out of money during the shutdown, billions in domestic spending stops. Government employees, retirees, pensioners, the disabled and others will lose their monthly benefits and be unable to pay the rent or buy food.
Meanwhile, the flow of foreign aid will also dry up, and the economic hit will leave overseas economies beached.
To cite just one example, aid to Egypt amounts to some $1 billion yearly. Aside from the argument that the Cairo government is failing to bring peace to that nation and withholding the cash is a way of making a point, if Washington has no money to pay veterans' benefits and to fund other domestic programs, stopping the cash flow may well collapse the world economy.
Think on it, politicians, while you deny the warnings.
As the government runs out of money during the shutdown, billions in domestic spending stops. Government employees, retirees, pensioners, the disabled and others will lose their monthly benefits and be unable to pay the rent or buy food.
Meanwhile, the flow of foreign aid will also dry up, and the economic hit will leave overseas economies beached.
To cite just one example, aid to Egypt amounts to some $1 billion yearly. Aside from the argument that the Cairo government is failing to bring peace to that nation and withholding the cash is a way of making a point, if Washington has no money to pay veterans' benefits and to fund other domestic programs, stopping the cash flow may well collapse the world economy.
Think on it, politicians, while you deny the warnings.
Drowning in a Sea of Words
Note to all the conservatives who insist that English be the official language in America: At least have the political leaders pronounce it properly.
Both John Boehner and Eric Cantor, among others, say "siddown" (one word) when they demand that President Obama sit down for negotiations over their differences.
The expression calls for two distinct words, with a T followed by a D. Not a double D rolled into a single word.
And never mind the hifalutin' gobbledygook, as Rep. Cathy Rodgers did when she said they "hope to begin a meaningful dialogue." Did she mean straight talk?
Both John Boehner and Eric Cantor, among others, say "siddown" (one word) when they demand that President Obama sit down for negotiations over their differences.
The expression calls for two distinct words, with a T followed by a D. Not a double D rolled into a single word.
And never mind the hifalutin' gobbledygook, as Rep. Cathy Rodgers did when she said they "hope to begin a meaningful dialogue." Did she mean straight talk?
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Managed Catastrophe
"Danger, Will Robinson. That does not compute." -- Robby the Robot.
News items: The government is closed, nobody's talking except to blame the other guy, and the approval rating for Congress is down to 5 percent. Considering the margin of error for polling, it's more likely zero; nobody likes what they're (not) doing.
Meanwhile, the forecast for the economy is "skewed to the downside," according to the Federal Reserve. And that's a phrase from the minutes, released today, of their meeting nearly a month ago, before the shutdown. How much worse can it be now?
Republicans are claiming it's a "managed catastrophe," whatever that is, and denying that the government will run out of money next week. There's plenty of revenue coming in, they say, for the government to pay the interest on its bonds, etc., while "negotiations" take place to resolve disagreements over the budget, the debt ceiling and the new health care law.
However, there apparently wasn't enough money to pay promised death benefits to the families of military personnel killed in the line of duty. There wasn't enough money to keep national parks open. There wasn't enough money to keep scientific research agencies functioning. There's isn't enough money to keep social service agencies working to help Americans in need.
But there's plenty of money to keep Congressional salaries flowing.
As for people out of work and unable to pay their bills, five federal regulatory agencies are urging banks to be lenient with customers affected by the shutdown.
And news media are finally getting to the story that an American government shutdown will, in fact, affect other economies and nations. When the world's largest economy hiccups, it's bound to affect others. How could it not?
Add this to the story: The Pentagon says military aid to Egypt will be cut. The given reason is the failure of the Cairo leaders to bring peace to that country. It's also true that with no budget in place and revenue dropping, the U.S. is running out of money. And if Washington is running out of money to keep its own operations running, it follows that it's running out of money to help others. So as the money flow stops, other economies also face a downturn.
Result: A worldwide crash.
"Failure to lift the debt ceiling would ... be a major event. Prolonged failure would lead to an extreme fiscal consolidation and almost surely derail the U.S. recovery." That from Olivier Blanchard, Economic Counsellor and Director of the Research Department at the International Monetary Fund. Moreover, Blanchard added, "The effects of any failure to repay the debt would be felt right away, leading to potentially major disruptions in financial markets both in the United States and abroad."
As for managing a catastrophe, that's a non sequitur. At best, it doesn't follow, and at worst, it's dumb.
Let's hope Congress gets its act together.
News items: The government is closed, nobody's talking except to blame the other guy, and the approval rating for Congress is down to 5 percent. Considering the margin of error for polling, it's more likely zero; nobody likes what they're (not) doing.
Meanwhile, the forecast for the economy is "skewed to the downside," according to the Federal Reserve. And that's a phrase from the minutes, released today, of their meeting nearly a month ago, before the shutdown. How much worse can it be now?
Republicans are claiming it's a "managed catastrophe," whatever that is, and denying that the government will run out of money next week. There's plenty of revenue coming in, they say, for the government to pay the interest on its bonds, etc., while "negotiations" take place to resolve disagreements over the budget, the debt ceiling and the new health care law.
However, there apparently wasn't enough money to pay promised death benefits to the families of military personnel killed in the line of duty. There wasn't enough money to keep national parks open. There wasn't enough money to keep scientific research agencies functioning. There's isn't enough money to keep social service agencies working to help Americans in need.
But there's plenty of money to keep Congressional salaries flowing.
As for people out of work and unable to pay their bills, five federal regulatory agencies are urging banks to be lenient with customers affected by the shutdown.
And news media are finally getting to the story that an American government shutdown will, in fact, affect other economies and nations. When the world's largest economy hiccups, it's bound to affect others. How could it not?
Add this to the story: The Pentagon says military aid to Egypt will be cut. The given reason is the failure of the Cairo leaders to bring peace to that country. It's also true that with no budget in place and revenue dropping, the U.S. is running out of money. And if Washington is running out of money to keep its own operations running, it follows that it's running out of money to help others. So as the money flow stops, other economies also face a downturn.
Result: A worldwide crash.
"Failure to lift the debt ceiling would ... be a major event. Prolonged failure would lead to an extreme fiscal consolidation and almost surely derail the U.S. recovery." That from Olivier Blanchard, Economic Counsellor and Director of the Research Department at the International Monetary Fund. Moreover, Blanchard added, "The effects of any failure to repay the debt would be felt right away, leading to potentially major disruptions in financial markets both in the United States and abroad."
As for managing a catastrophe, that's a non sequitur. At best, it doesn't follow, and at worst, it's dumb.
Let's hope Congress gets its act together.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Talking Points
Challenge the non-responsive response.
Reporters score solid journalism points when they challenge politicians who dodge questions and pivot to the day's preselected "talking points."
"Stay on message" is the politician's goal. "Answer the question" should be the response from reporters.
Today's plaudit goes to Don Lemon of CNN, who regularly runs a segment he calls "no talking points," as well as all others who challenge non-responsive responses.
Normally, news reporters and interviewers keep their opinions to themselves. But this is different. Interview subjects who consistently ignore questions, instead prattling on about their own designated "talking point" of the day are only spreading propaganda. And reporters who go along with this dodge are derelict in their duty.
For too long, reporters have been acquiescing to this tactic, caving in to the threat of losing access to the source. It's not exactly like the politician is dictating the questions and topics in advance, but in practice it's not much different if the candidate gets away with avoiding, side-stepping or pivoting away from a specific question to chatter about his preferred "message."
Reporters must stop being manipulated and used as platforms for political propaganda. It's long past time to challenge the prattlers, and say "Never mind the talking points, answer the question."
Advice to candidates, officials and executives: Hire some good PR people who can advise you on which reporter from news outlet will ask which question. Pay attention to what they advise, especially when they propose answers to specific questions. Especially when you don't like the question. Crossing out some of the suggested answers because you don't like the question and don't want to deal with it won't make it go away. That's a form of denial.
Telling your PR advisor that you don't like the question won't change the reality that the question will be asked. And a PR professional will be able to tell you which reporter from which news outlet WILL ASK that very question. If it turns out that the said reporter does not asked that very question, you come out ahead. Either way, you were prepared.
Keep in mind that the reason some politicians don't like news reporters is because they can't control them.
Reporters score solid journalism points when they challenge politicians who dodge questions and pivot to the day's preselected "talking points."
"Stay on message" is the politician's goal. "Answer the question" should be the response from reporters.
Today's plaudit goes to Don Lemon of CNN, who regularly runs a segment he calls "no talking points," as well as all others who challenge non-responsive responses.
Normally, news reporters and interviewers keep their opinions to themselves. But this is different. Interview subjects who consistently ignore questions, instead prattling on about their own designated "talking point" of the day are only spreading propaganda. And reporters who go along with this dodge are derelict in their duty.
For too long, reporters have been acquiescing to this tactic, caving in to the threat of losing access to the source. It's not exactly like the politician is dictating the questions and topics in advance, but in practice it's not much different if the candidate gets away with avoiding, side-stepping or pivoting away from a specific question to chatter about his preferred "message."
Reporters must stop being manipulated and used as platforms for political propaganda. It's long past time to challenge the prattlers, and say "Never mind the talking points, answer the question."
Advice to candidates, officials and executives: Hire some good PR people who can advise you on which reporter from news outlet will ask which question. Pay attention to what they advise, especially when they propose answers to specific questions. Especially when you don't like the question. Crossing out some of the suggested answers because you don't like the question and don't want to deal with it won't make it go away. That's a form of denial.
Telling your PR advisor that you don't like the question won't change the reality that the question will be asked. And a PR professional will be able to tell you which reporter from which news outlet WILL ASK that very question. If it turns out that the said reporter does not asked that very question, you come out ahead. Either way, you were prepared.
Keep in mind that the reason some politicians don't like news reporters is because they can't control them.
Compromise
"As long as you stick to your principles, compromise is not a dirty word." -- Chris Christie.
"This is not some damn game." -- John Boehner
GOP Obamaphobes, listen up. Compromise has become a dirty word to the hard core of do-it-my-way-or-elsers who demand negotiation over things that are not negotiable.
Republican Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey gained a reputation as a bully for his forceful manner of politics but later changed his approach after Superstorm Sandy ravaged the New Jersey Shore. Christie embraced the President Obama and the federal government's ability and willingness to help the recovery and rebuilding effort.
Speaker of the House John Boehner is right when he said the dispute over the budget and the debt ceiling, linking both to health care, is not a game. At least it shouldn't be. But why are so many of the players trying to score points against the opposition so they can win?
"This is not some damn game." -- John Boehner
GOP Obamaphobes, listen up. Compromise has become a dirty word to the hard core of do-it-my-way-or-elsers who demand negotiation over things that are not negotiable.
Republican Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey gained a reputation as a bully for his forceful manner of politics but later changed his approach after Superstorm Sandy ravaged the New Jersey Shore. Christie embraced the President Obama and the federal government's ability and willingness to help the recovery and rebuilding effort.
Speaker of the House John Boehner is right when he said the dispute over the budget and the debt ceiling, linking both to health care, is not a game. At least it shouldn't be. But why are so many of the players trying to score points against the opposition so they can win?
Politickle Diss-Connect
We don't hear much opposition to universal health care from the insurance industry.
The Obamaphobes have lost their marbles and sent everyone else home.
Congressional behavior would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous.
The politickle diss-connect was brought on because some few felt they didn't get the respect they thought they deserved. As if such behavior deserves respect. And because a small minority has been unable to persuade the majority to overturn a three-year-old law, which was passed by Congress, signed by the President and approved by the Supreme Court.
Now the House is attempting to erode the government's position piecemeal, by throwing pebbles against the budget impasse mountain, all the while complaining that the other side refuses to talk things over and negotiate.
The time for negotiation was six months ago, when the budget was due to be set up.
Still, the mouthy minority is using the budget and the debt ceiling as levers to overturn a legal program that is in place and that clearly people want. Proof of that is the flood of applications on Day One that the Affordable Care Act and the health insurance marketplace opened for business.
Opponents claim that the jammed computer system is proof that "it doesn't work," and that people don't want it. On the contrary, when millions of people try to access the online system on Day One, it's proof that people do indeed want it.
Reality check: Beyond Medicare and Medicaid, the government is not providing health insurance at all. The law requires everyone to have health insurance. Many already do, through their employers, on their own, or through Medicare (for seniors) and Medicaid (the poor and disabled). And if they don't have health insurance, they go to a government-sponsored marketplace to get it -- with a private company.
There are already many government-mandated insurance programs, including unemployment insurance, old-age pension insurance (Social Security), disability insurance, automobile insurance, and liability insurance for such professions as law and medicine.
This is another business opportunity.
The Obamaphobes have lost their marbles and sent everyone else home.
Congressional behavior would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous.
The politickle diss-connect was brought on because some few felt they didn't get the respect they thought they deserved. As if such behavior deserves respect. And because a small minority has been unable to persuade the majority to overturn a three-year-old law, which was passed by Congress, signed by the President and approved by the Supreme Court.
Now the House is attempting to erode the government's position piecemeal, by throwing pebbles against the budget impasse mountain, all the while complaining that the other side refuses to talk things over and negotiate.
The time for negotiation was six months ago, when the budget was due to be set up.
Still, the mouthy minority is using the budget and the debt ceiling as levers to overturn a legal program that is in place and that clearly people want. Proof of that is the flood of applications on Day One that the Affordable Care Act and the health insurance marketplace opened for business.
Opponents claim that the jammed computer system is proof that "it doesn't work," and that people don't want it. On the contrary, when millions of people try to access the online system on Day One, it's proof that people do indeed want it.
Reality check: Beyond Medicare and Medicaid, the government is not providing health insurance at all. The law requires everyone to have health insurance. Many already do, through their employers, on their own, or through Medicare (for seniors) and Medicaid (the poor and disabled). And if they don't have health insurance, they go to a government-sponsored marketplace to get it -- with a private company.
There are already many government-mandated insurance programs, including unemployment insurance, old-age pension insurance (Social Security), disability insurance, automobile insurance, and liability insurance for such professions as law and medicine.
This is another business opportunity.
Friday, October 4, 2013
Readability
No matter how esoteric, any topic can be written about at a high school level, and can be explained to teenagers -- assuming they listen. For that matter, don't even use the term "esoteric." It's too esoteric.
Instead, use obscure, or unclear. The word esoteric is from Greek roots meaning "inner world" and suggests that the subject will only be understood by a small group -- the "in crowd." The term is also used in a spiritual sense, to refer to an Otherworld. A related word is "exoteric," the outer world, meant to be understood by the general public.
But in writing, remember that the goal is communication. If your readers don't understand at first run-through and have to read the piece again, you have not communicated. Granted, they can read it a second or third time, but don't make them.
Postings on this blog tend to be at the ninth or tenth grade level, according to the Fleisch Readability Quotient. And that's deliberate. Or as Einstein is reputed to have said, "If you can't explain it to a ten-year-old, you don't understand it yourself."
Instead, use obscure, or unclear. The word esoteric is from Greek roots meaning "inner world" and suggests that the subject will only be understood by a small group -- the "in crowd." The term is also used in a spiritual sense, to refer to an Otherworld. A related word is "exoteric," the outer world, meant to be understood by the general public.
But in writing, remember that the goal is communication. If your readers don't understand at first run-through and have to read the piece again, you have not communicated. Granted, they can read it a second or third time, but don't make them.
Postings on this blog tend to be at the ninth or tenth grade level, according to the Fleisch Readability Quotient. And that's deliberate. Or as Einstein is reputed to have said, "If you can't explain it to a ten-year-old, you don't understand it yourself."
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Rollout Erosion
It's complicated.
And you thought insurance was complicated before!
"Insurance exchange" is just another term for an open market and private enterprise, with the new twist that everyone must have a health plan as Obamacare rolls into the marketplace. (If you already have one -- private, Medicare, or Medicaid, for example -- you're OK. Otherwise, you must get one or pay a penalty.)
So with such a huge, mandatory customer base, why are the bastionic speakers of corporate America opposing a market opportunity? Especially one that can wring big bucks from unwary consumers?
It's been estimated that for a family of four with $50,000 annual income, the cost of a health insurance policy can be some $500 a month. That's $6,000 a year, or 12 percent of their income. There's also a $10,000 cap on benefit payments, according to one estimate. Anyone who has dealt with hospitals knows that such a cap can be reached in a matter of days.
We can only guess that the battle is really over who gets credit for universal health care. For more than 50 years, politicians have tried to set up such a program on a national level, but each time it was blocked by the opposing political party. Until three years ago, when President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party succeeded.
But the Republican Party, despite a similar plan being put in place in Massachusetts under the governorship of its most recent presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, is trying to sabotage Obamacare even as it rolls out and becomes available to millions. Is it expensive? It can be. But there are numerous ways to trim the premiums, so the new program will provide health insurance coverage to millions of middle class working families -- traditionally solid Republican voters. As a result, these voters may bolt to the Democratic side of the ballot. And this is what is really scary to the GOP. Their voting base is eroded.
Not only do they not get credit for the program, but they also get blamed for trying to block it, in the process shutting down the government and causing an economic tsunami that may well disrupt the entire world.
Meanwhile, the American economy stands to take a billion-dollar hit every week as more than 800,000 furloughed federal workers sit home and hope for their paychecks to resume.
And as business in America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. Put another way, as the International Monetary Fund did this week, "The global economy is in better shape, but the road to a robust and comprehensive recovery remains bumpy."
None of which has stopped the ballot-hungry GOP from erecting barriers, digging potholes and doing whatever it can to stop Obama, in the processing sabotaging an already tentative economic recovery in the U.S. and around the world.
And you thought insurance was complicated before!
"Insurance exchange" is just another term for an open market and private enterprise, with the new twist that everyone must have a health plan as Obamacare rolls into the marketplace. (If you already have one -- private, Medicare, or Medicaid, for example -- you're OK. Otherwise, you must get one or pay a penalty.)
So with such a huge, mandatory customer base, why are the bastionic speakers of corporate America opposing a market opportunity? Especially one that can wring big bucks from unwary consumers?
It's been estimated that for a family of four with $50,000 annual income, the cost of a health insurance policy can be some $500 a month. That's $6,000 a year, or 12 percent of their income. There's also a $10,000 cap on benefit payments, according to one estimate. Anyone who has dealt with hospitals knows that such a cap can be reached in a matter of days.
We can only guess that the battle is really over who gets credit for universal health care. For more than 50 years, politicians have tried to set up such a program on a national level, but each time it was blocked by the opposing political party. Until three years ago, when President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party succeeded.
But the Republican Party, despite a similar plan being put in place in Massachusetts under the governorship of its most recent presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, is trying to sabotage Obamacare even as it rolls out and becomes available to millions. Is it expensive? It can be. But there are numerous ways to trim the premiums, so the new program will provide health insurance coverage to millions of middle class working families -- traditionally solid Republican voters. As a result, these voters may bolt to the Democratic side of the ballot. And this is what is really scary to the GOP. Their voting base is eroded.
Not only do they not get credit for the program, but they also get blamed for trying to block it, in the process shutting down the government and causing an economic tsunami that may well disrupt the entire world.
Meanwhile, the American economy stands to take a billion-dollar hit every week as more than 800,000 furloughed federal workers sit home and hope for their paychecks to resume.
And as business in America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. Put another way, as the International Monetary Fund did this week, "The global economy is in better shape, but the road to a robust and comprehensive recovery remains bumpy."
None of which has stopped the ballot-hungry GOP from erecting barriers, digging potholes and doing whatever it can to stop Obama, in the processing sabotaging an already tentative economic recovery in the U.S. and around the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)