Wednesday, October 31, 2012


Non-Partisan and Patriotic Position is to Reject Fabrications
The author of the list below is a private sector leader in the health care industry who teaches at the Weatherhead School of Management and the Medical School of Case Western Reserve University. He was chief execuitve of QualChoice Health Plan and now is a board member at the Joint Commission, MetroHealth and SummaCare. 
Follow the link and you can read his short but expert explanations for each myth.  Well worth reading.
But there is another story to be told here, a second reason to contemplate this list.  While the author is careful to focus on his area of expertise, health care, analyzing the list according to which party is pushing which myth we discover what fact checkers have been pointing out since the primaries:  it is inaccurate and un-American to throw up our hands and conclude ‘both sides are doing it.’ 
In this one (important) case, on the basis of the analysis by an industry expert, we can see clearly that 9 of the 10 myths below have been manufactured by Republicans who continue to repeat these over and over again (even more so on Fox News), despite fact checkers, and now this industry expert, demonstrated them to be fabrications designed to mislead us.
Myth #1. Democrats will destroy Medicare through the ACA
Myth #2. Republicans will destroy Medicare through the Ryan proposal
Myth #3. The ACA has “raided” $716 billion from Medicare
Myth #4. Doctors will be paid less and will abandon their patients
Myth #5. The ACA is a socialist/government takeover of the health system
Myth #6. The individual mandate imposes an unfair burden on those who can’t afford insurance
Myth #7. Excessive regulation of insurance will drive up cost
Myth #8. Insurance companies won’t want to participate due to higher risk and limited returns
Myth #9. It’s all funded with a huge tax on the middle class
Myth #10. We have to address costs first before expanding coverage.
The author concludes his list with this:  “There are many areas of legitimate difference, but the above are not among them. Let’s talk about the reality of what the law says, not political images and slogans.”
This is a non-partisan position and I agree with it whole heartedly.  Putting this expert’s analysis of health care myths into the larger context of the campaign and the past three years, it is also a non-partisan and patriotic position to conclude that today, the single greatest challenge to the great American experiment is the Republican Noise Machine distorting political communication with its partners in crime at Fox News.
It remains simply untrue that both sides are doing it this time around.  One side, the Republican side, is lying nine times more often on this central issue.  Just as Mann and Ornstein argued earlier, both sides are not doing the same thing in this election.  Being fair and balanced on this issue does not require us to ignore the facts and conclude there is a deep and intentional integrity gap here. 
One side is campaigning, which always mean selecting the facts that support your position.  The other side is building on the past three years of selling complete fabrications about birth certificates and socialism, including the current Romney ad, still airing in Ohio, claiming that the president sold Chrysler to the Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China.  Despite Chrysler’s vehement denial and Politifact rating it as a ‘pants on fire’ lie the ad continues to run as we approach election day. 
And that untruth is part of a larger fabrication in the same Romney ad, as Romney tries to deny that he would have let GM go under.  Here is how www.factcheck.com evaluated this ad.
GM, Chrysler & Bankruptcy
The ad also misleads Ohio voters when it says “Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy.” That’s true, but not the full story. The facts are that Romney in 2008 advocated that U.S. automakers go through a “managed bankruptcy” without the kind of extensive government assistance that Obama ultimately provided.
In a Nov. 18, 2008, New York Times op-ed headlined “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” Romney argued against a bailout. He wrote: “A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs.” As for government assistance, he said the “federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.”
During the second presidential debate, Romney falsely claimed that Obama implemented “precisely” what he recommended. But there was a significant difference. Obama provided direct federal aid — federal loans and equity investments — that the Detroit News called “extraordinary” and essential to the industry’s successful turnaround.
In its endorsement of Romney — which the TV ad touts — the Detroit News wrote that it endorsed Romney “despite his wrong-headedness on the auto bailout.”

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

President, again, shows his moderate and bipartisan character
President Obama reaching across the aisle again and this time Republican Governor Christie, who was the keynote speaker at Romney’s convention, chooses to work with the president, commenting on the president’s leadership during this crisis…on Fox News.  Unlike the Republican Congress that announced to us all that their goal was to block anything the president wanted to do...here we see that when both sides are willing to be problem solvers, we can get things done. 


Monday, October 29, 2012

UA Professor Appears on the News Hour
My colleague, David Cohen, was on the News Hour in a short segment discussing Battleground Ohio...pretty cool!

 

Sunday, October 28, 2012

David Brooks On Being a Moderate
Commentary from David Brooks is hit or miss for me.  Sometimes he strikes me as one the best and brightest, honest and analytically sharp.  Other times his work can be so off base and so clearly partisan, despite being framed as moderate, I swear to never read him again.  Maybe that is part of being a moderate too.  Writing like that and having reactions like mine.  Maybe not. 

In this column Brooks does both.  His description of being a moderate is smart.  If more of us understood this, we would come to political deliberations with both more realistic expectations and a tool box with more options for working things out.  At the same time, Brooks starts his column by painting one of our most extremely immoderate candidates as more moderate than the fundamentally moderate incumbent.  Despite this, the analysis is worth reading.  Here is a taste, one of the most thoughtful insights provided.

"...In America, moderates revere the fact that we are a nation of immigrants dedicated to the American dream — committed to the idea that each person should be able to work hard and rise. This animating principle doesn’t mean that all Americans think alike. It means that we have a tradition of conflict. Over the centuries, we have engaged in a series of long arguments around how to promote the American dream — arguments that pit equality against achievement, centralization against decentralization, order and community against liberty and individualism.
The moderate doesn’t try to solve those arguments. There are no ultimate solutions. The moderate tries to preserve the tradition of conflict, keeping the opposing sides balanced. She understands that most public issues involve trade-offs. In most great arguments, there are two partially true points of view, which sit in tension. The moderate tries to maintain a rough proportion between them, to keep her country along its historic trajectory.
Americans have prospered over the centuries because we’ve kept a rough balance between things like individual opportunity and social cohesion, local rights and federal power....."
A Review of the President's Long List of Accomplishments
The AddictingInfo page can be hard to navigate at times, but in this front page article they provide the most comprehensive list of accomplishments from his first term, with a hot link for each one if you want go and read more.  And the president accomplished all this with an opposition party willing to let GM disappear...that is, willing to try to block everything the president proposed.  In this context, the list of accomplishments turns out to be legendary.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Bishop Ricken Stumping for Romney-Ryan
Bishop David L. Ricken of the Green Bay Diocese in a recent email to his parishioners called on them to vote on the basis of a set of issues he has chosen to suggest Jesus would vote Republican.  Does this make being a Christian Democrat a mortal sin?
The bishop is being dishonest, because he is selling a partisan position, not reflecting the call to engage with love as articulated by the Bishops collectively in Faithful Citizenship.  His confusion of moral leadership with advocating his own preferences reminds me again why I am so impressed with the humility and sacrifice of the Sisters on the Bus. 
The bishop is cherry picking from Catholic Bishops’ statement Faithful Citizenship to campaign for a position inconsistent with that statement, indeed inconsistent with the life of Jesus.  Not because Jesus would vote Democratic (though an equally strong case can be made...and this is where we are called to exercise our conscience rather than bleet behind Biship Ricken to exercise his conscience), but because the call to live like Jesus as expressed in Faithful Citizenship makes great pains to not confuse this calling with a moral obligation to support any particular party…which is precisely what the bishop knowingly does here.
Here is what Faithful Citizenship says about our obligation to heed our conscience.
“Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. Our faith does not ask us to be one issue voters. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-informed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods.”
In addition to saying that church leaders should stay out of partisan politics, in Faithful Citizenship the bishops collectively note that “Catholics may choose different ways to respond to compelling social problems, but we cannot differ on our moral obligation to help build a more just and peaceful world through morally acceptable means, so that the weak and vulnerable are protected and human rights and dignity are defended,” contrary to this one bishop’s claim that Catholics must all choose to respond in the same way…to support his preferred party and candidate.
Then, there is question of what a ‘well-formed conscience’ means.  Certainly, for Catholics it means that protecting life is a fundamental moral good, but protecting life means protecting the unborn as well as the already born, opposing starvation due to poverty or death due to war, and standing strongly against capital punishment.  And this is not a partisan list.  The bishop taking this public stand on only some life issues, and not a random selection but a subset that coincides with his preferred party, is morally irresponsible.
Protecting life is a social justice issue that reminds us of the deeply radical and anti-establishment nature of Jesus’ Way, as we see in his own life choices.   We are called to engage, to exercise our conscience, and that calling is trivialized, transformed from a sacred calling to diminished thing, when one Bishop decides it is calling to vote for one particular party.  Shame on Bishop Ricken.  We expect so much more from our moral leaders.  Maybe the Sisters could be persuaded to mentor the bishop on their bus?

Friday, October 26, 2012

Reflecting on Our Election
Today, perhaps like many Americans, I am feeling unwilling to open the newspaper and hear more platitudes and misdirection.  Some cultures impose moratoriums on campaign ads during the final thirty days before an election...to allow citizens a chance to clear their heads of the noise and just reflect.  I am feeling like that would be a good thing, though we seem addicted to watching talking heads scream at each other, insisting that their side is so obviously correct and righteous, that unless there is a black out reflection seems like just about the last thing in the cards.

 
There is storm brewing.  More than one.  The Northeast is about to be hit hard, with many being evacuated.  The entire nation is about to be hit harder, as we harvest what we have planted these past ten years: a dysfunctional political communication system crippling our capacity to come together and solve problems, paralyzing social mobility and replacing the American Dream of e pluribus unum with every man for himself. 

I wonder if someday in the future, historians with the distance to be more detached will conclude that, if things turn out well, it will have been rooted in the decency of the average everyday Ohio voter, saving the American Dream from elite-led polarization run amuck. 

At any rate, I am going to try to unplug the noise and reflect on our election, our challenges, our leadership.  Rather than feel my stomach twist as another ad distorts and distracts, I choose to walk in the woods with my girlfriend and our dog.  It is time to listen to real people in my life if they want to talk about the election and if asked to share my thoughts face2face, without malice.  Focusing on the listening and connecting part might remind me that every conversation sacred, not commodified.  So many advertisers and PR executives have wormed their way into my head...time to reflect, because our nation depends on the decency of Ohio voters today more than ever.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Jon Stewart Reveals Fox News Nonsense...Again
And makes us laugh at the same time!
Rachel Maddow's analysis of the third debate is also excellent.





Monday, October 22, 2012


Romney Blaming Obama for Congressional Obstruction
I do not love the term ‘Romnesia’ but perhaps it captures something important about the candidate, because anyone who was paying attention for the past three years can only conclude that the president tried repeatedly to reach across the aisle and was repeatedly (and disrespectfully) rebuffed by Republicans in Congress who publicly announced noncooperation as their objective. 
 
And remembering the daily disrespectful and removed from reality part is important in evaluating Romney’s current claim…the president was portrayed by obstructionist Republicans in Congress as deeply unworthy of working with, painting him as an illegitimate alien (calls for his birth certificate are still heard), a Muslim who follows a radical Christian preacher, and a socialist (for proposing a market-based approach to health care reform and market-based ideas like cap ‘n trade that, before he reached across the aisle to support them, were Republican proposals).
But in reality, the president took a Republican idea (individual mandate) and put it at the center of his health care reform bill.  He offered to cut spending $10 for every $1 in new revenue (a deal non-Tea-Party Republicans wanted to eagerly accept but their Tea Party allies angrily rejected as ‘compromise’). 
This is serious reaching across the aisle, as demonstrated by the fact that most Democrats wanted the president to stick to a single-payer approach to health care reform and would likely have found the 10:1 plan difficult to swallow as well.  But that is what democratic compromise in the face of a great recession called for, and the president delivered, until Republicans in Congress just said no. 
The president believes we are all better off when the two parties work together to solve problems and only a failure to remember our most recent three years could allow us to accept this Romney claim as anything but seriously damaging nonsense.  We need to support leaders who walk the walk of working across the aisle. 
In the Romney ad, he contrasts this fairy tale about ‘cooperative Republicans in Congress’ with his own record in Massachusetts…forgetting to note, as the HPost reminds us, that “in just one term, Romney drove the state down to 47th out of 50th in job creation, increased per capita debt to the largest in the nation, left his successor a $1 billion deficit, and pushed through a tax cut that overwhelmingly benefited 278 of the wealthiest residents while raising taxes and fees on everyone else."
While his record in Massachusetts includes successes he hardly mentions in the campaign, few from my home state remember his leadership as remarkable for his capacity to reach across the aisle.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Thinking Seriously About a Role for Government
One of the fundamental questions we face today is a conflict between at least two visions of democratic governance.   



In his recent blog, reprinted by the HuffingtonPost, Jared Bernstein, Senior Fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities provided the following ideas on what many experts consider to be products or services that—since they are not profitably provided by the private sector—are more cost-effectively provided by the public sector…that is by all of us acting through our representatives…government. 

Social Insurance for Retirees
Even leaders in the business community note the burden placed on our productivity by the system of private company provided retirement benefits.

Public Infrastructure
Remember the discussion about ‘shovel-ready’ projects to repair bridges and roads, energy and communication grids that private sector activity depends on? 

Barriers to Production, Trade, and Technology
Basic research, like that famously associated with NASA, is too expensive and uncertain to attract private sector investment…but it is nevertheless critically important to private sector innovation. 

Public Education
An educated workforce, educated future leaders, worker training and re-training, depend on our collective will to make it happen.

A Safety Net
Many can be thrown out of work, losing their homes and savings, when systems fail…creating hardships not of their own making, as we all learned recently.

Regulation of Potentially Harmful Market Outcomes
We expect our food and water to be safe, and we do not expect every consumer to have a chemists degree to ensure that safety on their own. 

Health Care
Bernstein puts it this way, the “fact that it's not a normal market has led every other advanced economy to at least partially take this function out of the market, to avoid the ‘externalities’ that arise when people forego coverage yet need care.”

Military Defense and Judicial System
Alternatively, we could rely on private militia and Judge Judy.

Should we add, delete, revise, or consolidate items on this list to clarify our policy debates?

 

Saturday, October 20, 2012


That’s Just Politics...Why is everything so political?
One of the subtexts in political conversation for the past twenty years, and amplified during a presidential election campaign, has been how to make sense of our shared frustration with democratic politics.  Separate from disapproving of this or that policy, here I am referring to the sense on all sides that the central nervous system our framers set up to allow us to make smart decisions peacefully and collectively is broken.
 

It is not uncommon to hear Americans refer to ‘politics’ as a dirty word.

What is politics?  Okay, I grant you that this sounds like a dull, academic question, but stay with me, because I think it will be a worthwhile examination.  According to one of the most assigned texts in the field, The Logic of American Politics

“Inevitably social choices…breed conflict: conflicting interests, conflicting values, and conflicting ideas about whose values will be served and how to best allocate limited resources.  Politics is how people try to manage such conflicts…politics is the process through which individuals and groups reach agreement on a course of common, or collective, action—even as they may continue to disagree on the goals that action is intended to achieve…[and] politics almost invariably requires bargaining and compromise” (Third Edition, pages 4-5).

So, upon reflection we remind ourselves that politics is a process…that is a set of procedural rules (laws and regulations) we use to  (try to) achieve agreements…together…particularly when we disagree (since if there is no disagreement any particular conflict will likely work out on its own and not end up as a political question).

In this sense, some of our frustration about specific policy outcomes is likely being displaced into negative attitudes about a process that only works if we work with, engage with, people we disagree with…and may not like or respect all that much…requiring us to negotiate, cooperate, compromise and collaborate if we want to break gridlock and solve the problems that end up in our political process.

But there is no doubt there is also frustration with the process itself, and that is what worries me a bit.  Are we frustrated because we have lost the ability to negotiate with those who hold opposing views? 

Have we lost these skills because we have observed too many public and private sector elites modeling the least productive approaches to conflict…from the Dad coaching little league baseball going ballistic in the parking lot after a tough loss to presidents whose public pedagogy suggests that compromise itself is a form of weakness? 

Do we no longer understand the meaning of the words we cling to as political truths: democracy, deliberation, due process, individual rights, rule of law, and liberty?

Politics is a process through which we try to manage conflicts, even as we may continue to disagree, because we need to find a solution to these conflicts.  So, politics almost invariably requires bargaining and compromise…

Democracy cannot but be messy and frustrating (the non-messy options are pretty ugly), even more so when we misunderstand how it works and lack the skills needed to deliberate, but it is still the best approach we have yet created.  Our political system is certainly in the spotlight, perhaps failing us, but before we toss out the baby with the bath water, let’s consider that the process remains workable if only we would relearn the skills of democratic citizenship...starting at the top and insisting upon it from the bottom.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Check out the faces of the four other people in the image.  The middle-aged angry white man sitting next to him nursing his mug of draft beer.  The 30 something female executive with a martini who appears to be smiling.  The frizzy haired grandmother who seems to be either frowning or shocked.  Not sure how to read the bartender's facial expression.  Maybe 'pipe down, this is a quiet establishment.' 

And the central character, sipping either wine or a Belgium ale, is clearly happy to have the president back off of the life support he was on at the first debate.  But I wonder if the cartoonist drew him as a donkey because he self identifies as a partisan or because anyone who roots for the success of our sitting president would be seen in the eyes of the world as a partisan ass?

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

New York Times Team Fact Checks Town Hall Debate
Amazing how much we can learn by careful fact checking after a debate that was vigorous and contested and revealing.  Fact checking might be the most important force in this election.  Tonight we did not have a debate like the one depicted in the cartoon below and that is a good thing.

If You Only Read One Thing About Politics This Year, Read This
If we start with the reasonable assumption that both candidates are decent public servants, because I think that is generally true and true in this case, the difference is not less clear.  While all those that the Dems like to pillory (W, now Mitt) deserve better, I feel that most viscerally when I see the alien, muslim, socialist lies (and there is at least one new one daily on the web) about president Obama, and he deserves better. We deserve a better, less distorted, system of political communication. 
 
While both are decent men, these individuals are each part of a larger coalition and one of the coalitions includes Todd Akin (on the science and technology committee) and other science-deniers, and worse (just think of the concrete legislation in Viriginia that started the whole War on Women conversation and just about anything Alan West or Kyle from Arizona says). And of course this coalition includes the worst of the Tea Party folks (many of these are just frustrated and smart, but too many of the leaders are opportunists and not smart...Backman, Palin). 
 
So I suggest we examine the article and Daily Show episode below, because these provide strong and authoritative and bipartisan evidence to support the conclusion that there nothing close to an equivalency in terms of the two sides misleading and distorting our communication. 
 
Both of the analysts below of hugely respected thinkers. One is a liberal, but not a crazy liberal, a moderate, thoughtful, careful, grounded liberal that those on the left consider milk toasty. The other is very conservative but also thoughtful and not crazy. Read the short editorial they wrote together for the Post and then their interview on the Daily Show.  They get it absolutely right and both are high powered scholars who are taking a big risk by making a statement like this, so they must feel very strongly about their conclusions as well. What do you think? 

The Tactics Being Deployed by the Current Republican Leadership is the Problem
Two of our smartest Political Scientists...and both try to avoid being partisan, and one is a conservative analyst from the American Enterprise Institute...recently concluded that the Republican Party leadership is "ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.... No doubt, Demcrats were not exactly warm and fuzzy toward George W. Bush during his presidency. But recall that they worked hand in glove with the Republican president on the No Child Left Behind Act, provided crucial votes in the Senate for his tax cuts, joined with Republicans for all the steps taken after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and supplied the key votes for the Bush administration’s financial bailout at the height of the economic crisis in 2008. The difference is striking."

If you only read one piece of political analysis this year, read this one (meaning the link if you click on 'concluded' above).

Daily Show Interviews Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann
Two of our most respected political analysts, one from the conservative American Enterprise Institute, do what they rarely do...argue that we cannot blame both parties for the mess we are in today. Since this type of analysis is an very real break with scholarly traditions, it is worth thinking about it carefully.

Monday, October 15, 2012

silently walking in the woods
leaves falling, wet, slippery
Annie leaping, wood, water
Julie's hand slips easily into mine


Sunday, October 14, 2012

We are all in this together is not just a platitude
Here is a short but powerful article from the New York Times on why resisting the temptation to circle the wagons is in the interests of American elites (actually elites of any society based on linking prosperity to social mobility and innovation).  Well worth a close read. 

In my view, the push for charter schools is one sign of this dangerous call to circle the wagons that is more likely to kill the goose that laid the golden egg...thus, the cartoon.


Two thoughts tugging at each other in my mind and heart today
The first is my deep, and I hope shared, commitment to democracy.  

“We are of different opinions at different hours but we always may be said to be at the heart on the side of truth.”  Ralph Waldo Emerson
 
As an approach to politics that allows us all to work to be the authors of our own stories together.  Democracy depends on more than a little transparency so we have at least some reliable information.  A democratic society must cultivate citizens and leaders skilled at engaging in open-minded exchanges with those who hold opposing views, and hold in the highest regard those who are humble and thoughtful needed to collaborate (honoring our opponents even when we disagree with them) to solve problems. 


The second and related idea is limited government.

 
The cartoon captures a challenge we face today on the question of limited government.  Not a new challenge and not a challenge where one side is right and the other side silly.  Our framers were deeply suspicious of centralize political authority, based on their experience as a colony of England.  The Articles of Confederation is the most striking illustration of just how suspicious they really were, but even they soon realized that a confederation would likely be too weak to protect property rights, pay back revolutionary war debts, or provide an adequate national defense (which, to be honest was less honorable at that time than my phrasing here suggests, since it meant an army adequate for exterminating Native Americans). 

So, our current (and second) constitution was a compromise on limited government.  It was a collaboration between those, like Jefferson, who passionately believed that energetic state governments would be the best mechanism for ensuring our collective prosperity as a national community and those, like Hamilton, who believed that a loose confederation of states will be too weak to survive and unprepared to prosper in the coming industrial era when (as we saw) we will need a strong centralized authority to work with the private sector to build railroads, a modern financial sector, roads and highways, public schools and courts, a shared system of weights and measures and an adequate national defense.

My point here is that we have always agreed that limited government is one of our core shared values and we have long disagreed about the nature of limited government.  That disagreement pushed us into a war among the states.  That disagreement animates many current political, economic and cultural conflicts.  Both (of the two major) positions have deep roots in American political thinking.  And this cartoon highlights for me the ways that both (of the two major) sides today confuse the conversation by suggesting the other sides is unAmerican, irrational, or both.

While I certainly have my own view on this complex question, I encourage us all to work as our framers did to ‘be the change’ and make real the democratic promise of collaboration to solve problems…collaboration with those who hold opposing views. 

The cartoon makes liberals laugh because it suggests, simplistically, that conservatives are only interested in preserving traditions or smaller government to perpetuate patriarchy and advance their own private interests.  But there are as many good and democratic reasons to remain suspicious of centralized political authority today as there were in 1781.  The cartoon also point out (once the ridicule in it is put aside) that conservatives suggest, simplistically, that liberal programs to regulate corporate misconduct or preserve our air and water are driven by a desire to reduce liberty in favor of equality, rather than work to preserve both.  But there are as many good and democratic reasons to remain worried that a weak central government will be unable to keep us safe as there were in 1781. 

By focusing on the other side being unAmerican or irrational, we make it a lot more difficult to see (or create) common ground upon which we might collaborate to solve problems.

Saturday, October 13, 2012

WWJD?
Facebook is interesting.  Each day before I read my daily news I check in and nearly every day a friend (sometimes a distant high school friend or cousin I have not actually seen in years) has posted something that sparks some thinking.  I like that a lot.  Today, there was a post about WWJD.

First, let me fully recognize that it is an ongoing struggle to learn to love our enemies, the call to engage with love is a high calling that most of us fall short of every day, and I certainly claim no moral high ground since I am sure I fall short more than most. 
 
 
 
At the same time, there is puzzling phenomena out there among Christians that seems to be more about removing the call itself, redefining it so it just so happens to turn out that by being affluent or middle class we are answering the call.  Conveniently, then, those who are unlike us are not.
 
It really baffles me that people care enough to call themselves Christians (since if you choose not to internalize the call and the engage in the struggle with the paradox that we matter and we don’t why not just call yourself something else?) and then see our collective efforts to feed the hungry as best accomplished through pledges about no new taxes, which everyone knows is a direct assault on our capacity to do anything for the least among us.
 
There is always room for disagreement, but I am honestly at a loss here.  And I am not really focused on those who are Christian in name only.  This is less about do we tithe or attend weekly services, and more about those who are the most vocal about self-identifying as Christians and similarly insistent that What Jesus Would Do is support, for instance, approaches to health care that we know will leave millions more without access to care and put millions more at risk of losing their homes if a health challenge hits a loved one.
 
The prosperity gospel and Christians for the smallest possible government portion of the Tea Party both seem like they are, as Gandhi put it, the least Christian among us.  Their approach to democracy is not to pull together as communities to help the least, but to decry the chief tool we use to that: government itself, claiming that tool is the problem. 
 
This strikes me as a self-centered rationalization for turning our backs on the poor, for choosing to live a life defined neither by loving our neighbors nor our enemies.  This seems to redefine Christianity to make us more comfortable, instead of challening us with a call to engage with love, to do for the least among us as if that so-called lazy, black welfare mom were Jesus herself.
 
Worse yet, these resentment driven approaches to politics turn around to hurt the elite and middle class as well. As income inequality grows to record levels, with higher poverty and crime and diseases unchecked in public spaces, with federal agencies unable to check meningitis or mortgage back derivatives, many spheres of our lives become less stable and less safe...for everyone.
 
For instance, we all know that a single-payer health insurance plan is the most cost effective way to provide everyone with decent coverage.  All those who claim to be only interested in the dispassionate issue of debt and deficit should be supporters, because this is the best way to reduce health care costs. 
 
It is also the approach that is most consistent with our democratic and Christian values.  This approach would remove the burden of health care costs from American businesses, providing an enormous boost to our global competitiveness…all achieved by loving our neighbors and enemies alike, by doing the right thing, by using the power of democratic government rather than rejecting it.

Friday, October 12, 2012

More Government, Please
Meningitis outbreak kills 14 in six states and makes a strong case for stronger federal regulatory oversight.  Here is one of many types of threats where leaving it to the states puts Americans at risk, not because states are incompetent, but because effective regulatory oversight requires both the geographic reach and the resources of the federal government.



Less Violence Against Women, Please
Government regulation is us, you and I, using our government, expecting our representatives to hold those who try to make up their own rules accountable.  Government regulation keeps our food and drugs safe.  And our government is the tool we use to enforce the law, protect property rights, and protect individual rights like voting and freedom of speech. 

Where government is weak, we see in today’s news that a 14 year old Pakistani girl was shot by the Taliban for writing a blog.  According to Fox News,
“The shooting of Malala Yousufzai along with two classmates while they were on their way home from school Tuesday horrified people in Pakistan and internationally. It has been followed by an outpouring of support for a girl who earned the enmity of the Taliban for publicizing their acts and speaking about the importance of education for girls.

The Taliban have claimed responsibility for the shooting, saying that the girl was promoting "Western thinking." Late on Thursday, a spokesman for one of the group's branches in the country's north decided two months ago to kill Yousufzai in a carefully planned attack after her family ignored repeated warnings.
 
The extremist religious right in Pakistan intentionally targeted this 14 year old girl because she was blogging about what her life was like in a world dominated by the religious right’s patriarchal perspective on women’s rights.  A stronger government speaking for all citizens, men and women, and able to hold those unwilling to respect our social contract accountable for the harms they do...still a good idea.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Read the Fact Checkers Yourself
Politifact, Factcheck, Real Clear Politics.  Politifact was reporting during the debate itself, so it is ready to read now. Factcheck had not yet completed their analysis at the time of my posting.  The New York Times, again like after the first debate, provides a very detailed and readable fact checking of the VP debate that is well worth reading.  Real Clear Politics does not organize itself as a fact check site, but can be read to get that information. 



Biden appeared to have a much more sophisticated grasp of foreign affairs.  He called Ryan on several statements about taxes that lacked specifics and Ryan was only able to admit he does not have specifics and explain that this is because he and Romney plan to work in a bipartisan manner. 

Lack of specifics seems like a weakness to me, but the claim that Congressman Ryan and his House colleagues will be those interested in a bipartisan approach is contrary to what we have observed in the past three years, making the lack of specifics more worrisome.
Congratulations to Mo Yan
Chinese novelist, Mo Yan (which means 'do not speak'), was awarded this year's Nobel Prize in Literature.  Here is a great short review of his work that I hope sparks you to pick up a book!

Friday, October 5, 2012

A Structural Failure
Watch Live Stream of Citizen Election Forum in Ohio's 16th
Jefferson Action homepage...All day Friday, Saturday, and Sunday

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Romney Lies, President Misleads
Fact Checking Results:  Obama 1 Romney 0

The New York Times did a great job fact checking the first debate...a must read.  I provide an overview of it here.

Perhaps the most startling statement came in the first exchange.  Everyone knows that Romney has promised a tax cut, and that his only real specific has been it will include a 20% reduction in all marginal tax rates (and that part alone will result in a $5 trillion tax cut).  The question has always been how would he pay for it, since he also promised to do this without increasing debt.  Romney’s startling response:  my tax plan does not include a $5 trillion tax cut!  And these are not the droids you are looking for.  Is there no electoral penalty for such hubris?

Romney’s claims about an unelected Medicare board were incorrect and, since Congress can block any action by the board, even the unelected part is grossly misleading. Romney’s claim that he will create 12 million new jobs is the same number of new jobs already projected to be created in the next four years. 

Romney’s claim that half of the green companies have failed turns out to be 3 out of 36.  And while Romney strongly denied that he would cut educational spending, he has said exactly that more than once during the current campaign.  There is a disturbing pattern here.

Romney repeated the Tea Party line that health care reform is a government takeover.  This line is misleading at best, though this fact checker (meaning me) concludes it is without merit.  It is a lie repeated to confuse and mislead and that is the opposite of good leadership.  Here is how the NYT fact checkers discussed it.

“The 2010 health care law clearly expands the role of the federal government. But it also builds on the foundation of private health insurance, providing subsidies for millions of low- and moderate-income people to buy private insurance.

Under the law, close to 30 million Americans are expected to gain health coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office….  In addition, the federal government would subsidize the purchase of private insurance for millions of people with incomes up to four times the poverty level (up to $92,200 for a family of four).

Private insurers would thus have many new customers….  The federal share of all health spending is expected to rise to more than 31 percent, from slightly less than 29 percent.”

Private insurance companies will still be the providers, increasing profits by covering more people, increasing the uniformity of coverage by industry-wide standards (cover pre-existing, not lifetime limit) that allow them to do the right thing without losing market share to less honorable competitors. 

But the key is that this is still an private sector approach…one that build on an American tradition of public-private collaborations that build the railroads, highways, the internet, space program, public education and more.  The fact checkers go on to add…

“When Mr. Romney and other Republicans complain of a federal takeover, they are referring to more than spending and enrollment in government health programs. They say the new health care law will require most Americans to purchase “government-approved insurance” or pay a new tax.”

If they mean spending increases from a 29% share to 31% that does not constitute a takeover.  If they mean the government will provide insurance… that is simply untrue. If they mean we will come together around the private sector idea of insurance…the bigger the pool of participants the lower the costs for everyone…then they are correct, but this will still be through insurance provided through private companies making a profit on a stronger system serving more citizens.

This fact checker concludes, then, that the claim of a government take-over is without empirical foundation.  It is a red herring designed to derail the serious problem solving conversations we need to have.  It is an idea that advertises one side’s willingness to remain resolutely committed to positions that advance their narrow private interests at the expense of the public interest, no matter how distant from the truth or harmful to the economy.

Romney’s very dramatic criticism of Dodd-Frank turns out to be a point that both Democrats and Republicans have made about an area of the law they are concerned will not work and needs to be fixed.  Romney, however, portrayed this as the president’s party intentionally selecting five banks as too big to fail in order to “write them a blank check.” 

This is misleading, since the designation in the law comes with additional regulatory oversight and a requirement that each institution create a living will to outline how the government would manage their collapse if a future shock requires it.  There is concern that this provision will not work and anyone who remembers how hard Republicans fought against financial regulation with real teeth can only be puzzled by Romney’s sudden claim that he would want more regulatory teeth.

Two figures on the amount of oil subsidies, but only the president’s figure has appeared in the last three budgets.  $90 billion to green companies is correct, but these loans and even the Solyndra fiasco had bi-partisan support in Congress.  It is true that the Obama administration contributed to Solyndra mess in part because supporting them made political sense for the party rather than economic sense for the country. That is a failure of leadership.

Romney’s dramatic claim, repeated several times, that the president is cutting $716 billion from Medicare has been repeatedly debunked and is debunked again in the article referred to here.  Yet he continues to repeat it.  This is not making a point where there is honest disagreement.  This is knowingly repeating an untruth, over and over.

Obama repeated his claim that his plan will cut deficits by $4 trillion over ten years.  Some analysts agree, most do not.  The disagreement here is over whether or not to include spending saved by ending two wars, for instance, and there are at least two legitimate positions on this.  While it is not standard practice to include savings like this, it is also true that the president’s success at ending the wars will save us those amounts.  I wish the president would say this differently (‘will reduce deficits by $2.4 trillion, and when you include savings from…’).

Romney claimed the president had doubled the deficit…untrue.  In dollars it is about the same and as a percentage of the economy (the usual measure) it is lower.  I have just provided a taste here… check out the NYT fact checkers extremely detailed analysis of dozens of claims made in the first debate.  I highly recommend it.

Or, check out the two most highly respected organizations that focus on fact checking and then make your own call...My call is Obama 1 Romney 0.