For 20 years I anticipated that the nature of reading, and newspapers, would change. My argument was that the laws of economics would not tolerate printing ink and postage if a cheaper method of transmitting information was available.
I was wrong, sort of. Then, not now. The day may actually be close at hand. Literally.
Two weeks ago I finally got tired of waiting for AT&T to bring the iPhone to Central Oregon and I bought an Android smart phone. One of it's features is a browser. Doesn't cost me any more to use than my old plan.
The screen is bright and sharp. And interestingly, it is about the width of a column of type in a newspaper. I can read The Nugget Newspaper of Sisters Oregon, or the New York Times. I can make the type larger or smaller. It is convenient to read at the coffee shop, or the doctor's office, in my car waiting for my daughters after school.
This may be it, the end of newsPAPERS as we know them. I may have been early, but others have written about the convenience of the small screen (read it here).
That does not mean it is the end of "news." Yes, newspapers are falling on hard times with competition from Google and Craig's list. Yes, the financial model of news organizations will have to change.
But as the efficiency of electronic transmission of information hammers traditional papers, there is still money to be made from content. There will be a transition, but at some point, good writers and good editors will prevail, as much because of the glut of information as despite it. We will turn to sources we can trust over time.
Readers will find quality because it has value.
Even as we assimilate it from our phones.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
The "death panel" lies
For the real history of how the more corrupt right wing of the Republican Party tried to hijack the health care debate, read this account by Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Read it here).
I have disagreed with the Congressman in the past, but in this account, he dissects the process of how the right wing warped and twisted part of the debate. He was there. He is the authority.
From this viewpoint, one of Blumenauer's most significant charges is aimed at the U.S. news media. They have abdicated their responsibility. Fair presentation of the news is not measured by weighing ink, counting words, and presenting "each side."
Responsible media (not entertainment networks like "Fox") have an obligation to establish context and present the "truth." Yes, some ideas are more true than others. By failing to work harder, think deeper, and take risk, those news organizations which treat all ideas equally are aiding and abetting the liars.
The first amendment exists because truth matters.
I have disagreed with the Congressman in the past, but in this account, he dissects the process of how the right wing warped and twisted part of the debate. He was there. He is the authority.
From this viewpoint, one of Blumenauer's most significant charges is aimed at the U.S. news media. They have abdicated their responsibility. Fair presentation of the news is not measured by weighing ink, counting words, and presenting "each side."
Responsible media (not entertainment networks like "Fox") have an obligation to establish context and present the "truth." Yes, some ideas are more true than others. By failing to work harder, think deeper, and take risk, those news organizations which treat all ideas equally are aiding and abetting the liars.
The first amendment exists because truth matters.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Fox vs. America
It's about time someone -- anyone -- had the guts to say what needs to be said about Fox "news." (read it here).
Fox has long been a propaganda arm of the right wing fringe. Good entertainment, but no one should mistake it for news, let alone fair and objective.
Mainstream television analysts should have pointed this out, but they lost their balls years ago, and have become entertainment outlets as well. "Saucer boy" was at most a local news event, maybe something that deserved 60 seconds. But wow, were those shots of the saucer flying over Colorado great to capture eyeballs.
Turns out it was a publicity stunt. It worked, too, showing that the nation's media has become so craven that it can be manipulated by a simple wannabe actor looking for a "reality show."
But back to Fox: Aside from Jon Stewart, who is giving Fox the incredulity and scorn it has earned? Even the print media has mostly (read it here) failed to point out the obvious:
Fox is not much more than a smear machine.
And now, like every bully, Fox "news" has become a whiner.
"Surprisingly, the White House continues to declare war on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about like jobs, health care and two wars," Fox News Senior Vice President Michael Clemente said in a statement.
How absurd. Declare "war?" Please, Mr. Clemente, don't flatter yourself. It doesn't take that much effort to point out that Fox is a propaganda organ. Plenty of time left in the day to improve the plight of mankind.
See the innuendo in Clemente's statement? That is a Fox technique. Because it is easy, because it can trick simple minds. Make a statement by asking a question. Never miss an opportunity to show disrespect for the other guy.
Like the venal utterance from Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) who thought it "interesting" that swine flu epidemics broke out during Democratic administrations. Like nearly everything out of the weaselly mouth of dim-witted Sarah Palin.
The Fox mission is to scream instead of question, to ask loaded questions, to play games with language and not engage in thoughtful discourse.
Fox is the channel of fear mongers and is used for hate speak. It is more Archie Bunker than Walter Cronkite. Mistaking Fox for news ruins the dialogue in this country over important issues. The Obama administration is right to give it the attention it deserves.
Fox has long been a propaganda arm of the right wing fringe. Good entertainment, but no one should mistake it for news, let alone fair and objective.
Mainstream television analysts should have pointed this out, but they lost their balls years ago, and have become entertainment outlets as well. "Saucer boy" was at most a local news event, maybe something that deserved 60 seconds. But wow, were those shots of the saucer flying over Colorado great to capture eyeballs.
Turns out it was a publicity stunt. It worked, too, showing that the nation's media has become so craven that it can be manipulated by a simple wannabe actor looking for a "reality show."
But back to Fox: Aside from Jon Stewart, who is giving Fox the incredulity and scorn it has earned? Even the print media has mostly (read it here) failed to point out the obvious:
Fox is not much more than a smear machine.
And now, like every bully, Fox "news" has become a whiner.
"Surprisingly, the White House continues to declare war on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about like jobs, health care and two wars," Fox News Senior Vice President Michael Clemente said in a statement.
How absurd. Declare "war?" Please, Mr. Clemente, don't flatter yourself. It doesn't take that much effort to point out that Fox is a propaganda organ. Plenty of time left in the day to improve the plight of mankind.
See the innuendo in Clemente's statement? That is a Fox technique. Because it is easy, because it can trick simple minds. Make a statement by asking a question. Never miss an opportunity to show disrespect for the other guy.
Like the venal utterance from Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) who thought it "interesting" that swine flu epidemics broke out during Democratic administrations. Like nearly everything out of the weaselly mouth of dim-witted Sarah Palin.
The Fox mission is to scream instead of question, to ask loaded questions, to play games with language and not engage in thoughtful discourse.
Fox is the channel of fear mongers and is used for hate speak. It is more Archie Bunker than Walter Cronkite. Mistaking Fox for news ruins the dialogue in this country over important issues. The Obama administration is right to give it the attention it deserves.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Net neutrality and Republican pandering
It appears that Republican knee-jerk support of giant corporations over the rights of ordinary people remains intact.
In an article from BBC News (read it here), it was noted that six Republican senators have introduced legislation to punish the Federal Communications Commission for keeping oligopolies from choking off access to the Internet.
Oh, they dress it up. They say there is no apparent problem.
Yeah, there is no apparent problem when the door is open and the horses are still in the barn. There is no apparent problem because the handful of companies which own mobile access to the Internet haven't yet figured out how to turn their oligopoly into a powerful force.
It is as if three or four companies owned all the interstate highways in America. They get to decide who gets on, how fast everyone should go, and perhaps they charge their friends less than they charge the average driver. Which enriches their friends, who kick back money to the highway owner, who then buys himself a politician, who resists any attempt to make sure everyone can drive on the roads.
Folks, regulation is not by itself a bad thing. Monopolistic oil companies had to be broken up. AT&T had to be broken up. Once you could only buy a telephone from AT&T. A good argument can be made that much of the innovation we saw in communication was due to the competition caused by the break up of AT&T.
Don't equate corporate pandering by the Republican Party with being pro business. Regulation can assist business when it fosters competition by preventing a concentration of power in the hands of a few.
Greed and power will always exist, and one role of government is to make sure that consumers and businesses get a level playing field.
In an article from BBC News (read it here), it was noted that six Republican senators have introduced legislation to punish the Federal Communications Commission for keeping oligopolies from choking off access to the Internet.
Oh, they dress it up. They say there is no apparent problem.
Yeah, there is no apparent problem when the door is open and the horses are still in the barn. There is no apparent problem because the handful of companies which own mobile access to the Internet haven't yet figured out how to turn their oligopoly into a powerful force.
It is as if three or four companies owned all the interstate highways in America. They get to decide who gets on, how fast everyone should go, and perhaps they charge their friends less than they charge the average driver. Which enriches their friends, who kick back money to the highway owner, who then buys himself a politician, who resists any attempt to make sure everyone can drive on the roads.
Folks, regulation is not by itself a bad thing. Monopolistic oil companies had to be broken up. AT&T had to be broken up. Once you could only buy a telephone from AT&T. A good argument can be made that much of the innovation we saw in communication was due to the competition caused by the break up of AT&T.
Don't equate corporate pandering by the Republican Party with being pro business. Regulation can assist business when it fosters competition by preventing a concentration of power in the hands of a few.
Greed and power will always exist, and one role of government is to make sure that consumers and businesses get a level playing field.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Christians with no faith
It was hard to figure out why the far right mob was engorging themselves on the fiction of "death panels" dispensing medical care. It took a while, then there was the flash: Despite calling themselves Christian, they have no faith.
Well, not exactly right. They are actually "totemic" Christians. They have faith in their totems. "The Bible" is one of their totems. "Free markets" are another. "Family" is another.
When there needs to be a rational dialogue, they reach into their bag of superstitions and wave around a totem, as if to ward off the evil spirits of "socialism" or "homosexuality" or "lack of values."
Their shamans, Rush, Palin, O'Reilly, and the others, actually know this is a game. They just want to win, and capture the fame, power and money that comes from selling fear, like their forebears, Jimmy Swagggert, Jim Baker, and the others. These use the totems to communicate in code, to prod their flock into panic, to create the frenzy we see building around us.
But others with more character are faced with the knowledge that the issues we face will not bow to superstitions. That the shoddy system of health care we have eats 16% of our budget and will not run from a totem. That it needs to be fixed by rational effort.
Bank reform, credit card reform, education reform, political reform will not be solved with magical potions. These are issues that need to be looked at squarely, and hard decisions need to be made. Imbalances corrected. Power may shift.
Oh yes, the left has its totems as well. In many ways they mirror that of the right, and usually start with a hatred of other people's money. The difference is that the left doesn't hide behind Christianity, though interestingly, probably has more claim to it.
But why are those on the right so eager to believe the false prophets? Is it they don't really believe that their Reward is Coming? Is that why they are so focused on the lies and politics of the material world?
Or it may be that there is need, now, to stretch our idea of community to include others not like us. They want to exclude more than embrace, and hypocrisy always hides behind anger and fear.
It doesn't matter. There is work to be done. We need to get to it.
Well, not exactly right. They are actually "totemic" Christians. They have faith in their totems. "The Bible" is one of their totems. "Free markets" are another. "Family" is another.
When there needs to be a rational dialogue, they reach into their bag of superstitions and wave around a totem, as if to ward off the evil spirits of "socialism" or "homosexuality" or "lack of values."
Their shamans, Rush, Palin, O'Reilly, and the others, actually know this is a game. They just want to win, and capture the fame, power and money that comes from selling fear, like their forebears, Jimmy Swagggert, Jim Baker, and the others. These use the totems to communicate in code, to prod their flock into panic, to create the frenzy we see building around us.
But others with more character are faced with the knowledge that the issues we face will not bow to superstitions. That the shoddy system of health care we have eats 16% of our budget and will not run from a totem. That it needs to be fixed by rational effort.
Bank reform, credit card reform, education reform, political reform will not be solved with magical potions. These are issues that need to be looked at squarely, and hard decisions need to be made. Imbalances corrected. Power may shift.
Oh yes, the left has its totems as well. In many ways they mirror that of the right, and usually start with a hatred of other people's money. The difference is that the left doesn't hide behind Christianity, though interestingly, probably has more claim to it.
But why are those on the right so eager to believe the false prophets? Is it they don't really believe that their Reward is Coming? Is that why they are so focused on the lies and politics of the material world?
Or it may be that there is need, now, to stretch our idea of community to include others not like us. They want to exclude more than embrace, and hypocrisy always hides behind anger and fear.
It doesn't matter. There is work to be done. We need to get to it.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
It's about power, stupid
The truly strange thing about the war over the "public option" is that it is probably the most market oriented facet of the whole health care reform package. The wrong guys support it, the wrong guys are opposed.
Normally, the left would simply resort to regulation: "Though shalt not charge more than..." and screw up the economics of health care more than they are screwed up.
"At a minimum, there should be very strict regulation of all insurers, on and off the exchange, to promote competition and fair prices and substantial subsidies to help low-income people buy insurance..." editorializes the New York Times, again illustrating how the left doesn't "get" economics. To promote competition you don't regulate insurers, you guard the markets, reduce "barriers to entry," etc.
There are many market forces in place that drive up the cost of health care "as a system." Doctor owned diagnostic centers, for example; lack of competition in any one geographical market; insurance oligopolies; no standardized charting.
The antidote is to introduce forces that can systemically drive down prices, and that is best achieved through competition. That competition is best enhanced with public options, consumer choice, consumer consequences, all of which are lacking in the current environment.
And maybe for that reason alone, the brains of the Republican right are so opposed. The public option might actually work, because it really is a market-based tool. A tool they should favor.
On the other hand, if they can kill the public option and force the left into its comfortable role of law-based decision making, they will be able to point out that the left does want to deny choice, favors government over the individual. It is a long term strategy to get back into power.
The administration needs to grab this process. It can not be left to the right, nor the blue dogs, nor the far left. This administration is in a unique position to take all the good ideas and rework the health care landscape, with or without "compromise." Their plan could be the compromise.
There are many good ideas out there. Public option. Co-operatives. Tort reform. Transportability. Elimination of rules that limit plans to "in-state." Standardized, transferable electronic records. Perhaps they all need to be given a chance.
It is time to get to work.
Normally, the left would simply resort to regulation: "Though shalt not charge more than..." and screw up the economics of health care more than they are screwed up.
"At a minimum, there should be very strict regulation of all insurers, on and off the exchange, to promote competition and fair prices and substantial subsidies to help low-income people buy insurance..." editorializes the New York Times, again illustrating how the left doesn't "get" economics. To promote competition you don't regulate insurers, you guard the markets, reduce "barriers to entry," etc.
There are many market forces in place that drive up the cost of health care "as a system." Doctor owned diagnostic centers, for example; lack of competition in any one geographical market; insurance oligopolies; no standardized charting.
The antidote is to introduce forces that can systemically drive down prices, and that is best achieved through competition. That competition is best enhanced with public options, consumer choice, consumer consequences, all of which are lacking in the current environment.
And maybe for that reason alone, the brains of the Republican right are so opposed. The public option might actually work, because it really is a market-based tool. A tool they should favor.
On the other hand, if they can kill the public option and force the left into its comfortable role of law-based decision making, they will be able to point out that the left does want to deny choice, favors government over the individual. It is a long term strategy to get back into power.
The administration needs to grab this process. It can not be left to the right, nor the blue dogs, nor the far left. This administration is in a unique position to take all the good ideas and rework the health care landscape, with or without "compromise." Their plan could be the compromise.
There are many good ideas out there. Public option. Co-operatives. Tort reform. Transportability. Elimination of rules that limit plans to "in-state." Standardized, transferable electronic records. Perhaps they all need to be given a chance.
It is time to get to work.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Sunday, August 16, 2009
The public option
On Friday, Sarah Palin joined Republicans nationwide in opposition to public libraries.
Funded by major publishing companies, book store chains and a large seller of books over the Internet, the right wing has declared libraries to be "socialist, communist, and not the American Way."
Libraries, they say, threaten the ability of Americans to buy books, and could lead to government control over what is read, by whom and where.
"If government buys books, government will decide what books to buy. It is clear that this is a threat to democracy," said (former) prescription drug addict Rick Limberger on his radio show.
Will O'Kelly, on his television program and between ads for exotic Swedish sponges, said that people who go to libraries may be affiliated with Al Queda, he didn't know that and wasn't saying that, but librarians should be investigated, and those who publicly deny the fact should be required to prove it isn't true.
Shamus Hennesy said that it is clear that library books are a vehicle for disease, and only pristine, white pages with virginal paper unsullied by unknown hands of other possible color were good enough for his daughters. He compared libraries to crack houses and the sharing of library books to the sharing of needles.
"Tea Baggers," the unfortunately named movement of people afraid of an educated populace, have protested at town hall meetings nationwide. Funded by the book sellers, mobilized by radio entertainers, they shout into microphones provided by the government that people being able to read books purchased by government represents an infringement on their rights.
But it is the darling brunette of the far right who has captured the essence of the debate. Not that her looks matter. If she was a moose with dewlaps and dimples, she would still command attention for the power of her ideas.
"We don't want to pay taxes so other people can read," said Palin, who also said that she would definitely take up arms against public education when she might run for president in 2012, though she said she isn't saying that, nor what she was saying, but said that too with her famous coy smile.
"Government is bad. Taxes are bad. Tax supported 'public' schools are bad. 'Public' libraries are bad. Anything with the word 'public' is bad, because it has most of the same letters as pubic, and will give our young people ideas and lead them down a path of moral decay," Palin said with a wink that instantly drew millions of conservative men down that very same path.
"If I can't afford to pay for my child's education, I should not have an educated child," she added, pointing again with pride to her own family. "Besides, I don't read that much."
Others have not been so direct.
"Libraries threaten the profits of national book store chains. Without profits, they will fail, throwing thousands of sales clerks out of work at a time when the economy can ill afford additional unemployment," said Pewt Heinrichs, former Republican strategist.
Those in favor of libraries have remained for the most part silent. "We just think people should have access to books, even if they can't afford to buy them," said one quietly, asking to remain anonymous, afraid his neighbors would show up to burn down his home.
Funded by major publishing companies, book store chains and a large seller of books over the Internet, the right wing has declared libraries to be "socialist, communist, and not the American Way."
Libraries, they say, threaten the ability of Americans to buy books, and could lead to government control over what is read, by whom and where.
"If government buys books, government will decide what books to buy. It is clear that this is a threat to democracy," said (former) prescription drug addict Rick Limberger on his radio show.
Will O'Kelly, on his television program and between ads for exotic Swedish sponges, said that people who go to libraries may be affiliated with Al Queda, he didn't know that and wasn't saying that, but librarians should be investigated, and those who publicly deny the fact should be required to prove it isn't true.
Shamus Hennesy said that it is clear that library books are a vehicle for disease, and only pristine, white pages with virginal paper unsullied by unknown hands of other possible color were good enough for his daughters. He compared libraries to crack houses and the sharing of library books to the sharing of needles.
"Tea Baggers," the unfortunately named movement of people afraid of an educated populace, have protested at town hall meetings nationwide. Funded by the book sellers, mobilized by radio entertainers, they shout into microphones provided by the government that people being able to read books purchased by government represents an infringement on their rights.
But it is the darling brunette of the far right who has captured the essence of the debate. Not that her looks matter. If she was a moose with dewlaps and dimples, she would still command attention for the power of her ideas.
"We don't want to pay taxes so other people can read," said Palin, who also said that she would definitely take up arms against public education when she might run for president in 2012, though she said she isn't saying that, nor what she was saying, but said that too with her famous coy smile.
"Government is bad. Taxes are bad. Tax supported 'public' schools are bad. 'Public' libraries are bad. Anything with the word 'public' is bad, because it has most of the same letters as pubic, and will give our young people ideas and lead them down a path of moral decay," Palin said with a wink that instantly drew millions of conservative men down that very same path.
"If I can't afford to pay for my child's education, I should not have an educated child," she added, pointing again with pride to her own family. "Besides, I don't read that much."
Others have not been so direct.
"Libraries threaten the profits of national book store chains. Without profits, they will fail, throwing thousands of sales clerks out of work at a time when the economy can ill afford additional unemployment," said Pewt Heinrichs, former Republican strategist.
Those in favor of libraries have remained for the most part silent. "We just think people should have access to books, even if they can't afford to buy them," said one quietly, asking to remain anonymous, afraid his neighbors would show up to burn down his home.
Insurance companies need competition
There have been several health care commentaries from the right with important ideas for the debate on health care. John Mackey of Whole Foods has been unfairly beat up for his ideas (read it here). There have been others.
But they often contain one important flaw. They seem to assume that if something goes wrong, it is the fault of the patient. He or she eats too much or smokes too much or drinks too much.
But not all health events are a matter of choice. Everything that happens to us is not the result of bad habits.
I appear to be healthy, I exercise, I am not overweight. I don't smoke and haven't had a drink in decades. I don't do soft drinks.
But I was refused health insurance because I have high cholesterol. Not heart disease, mind you, but high cholesterol, a condition that could cause heart disease. About the time I decided to address this issue with drugs, unsuccessful with diet, I had to change doctors because of a dispute between the insurance company and my doctor's company over how much money insurance would pay for my visits.
My new doctor ordered a battery of tests. Tests that insurance companies don't like to pay for, because they don't really affect treatment. If you have high cholesterol, the treatment is to take statins, it doesn't really matter why you have high cholesterol. They claim the doctors order the test to make more money.
But my doc wanted to know, because it might dictate how to attack my high cholesterol. It turns out I have a genetically-caused situation. I don't know how to describe it, other than remembering that I had something like three markers for the genetic issue, and if I had the fourth marker, chances are I would already be dead, or face dementia because of plaques in the brain, or worse.
The point is that I have a genetic condition, not modifiable by diet, that could affect my health. And for that reason, I was denied health insurance by private companies. I had to scramble to find a "public option" that would take me.
I am not alone. Many have conditions that allow the insurance industry to decide, after being paid many tens of thousands of dollars, as I paid them, that a patient isn't worth the risk. Heart disease. Broken bones. Family history of cancer. Diabetes. Go away.
The game is rigged in their favor. I know this as a citizen, and having watched them from a chair on the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners. The market mechanism does not work very well when talking about health care, nor insurance.
Our system is broken. We can get great care in America, and I know that, too. I have had exemplary doctors, and I am a demanding patient. But the "system of health care" is broken. There is too much paper work. Doctors face unnecessary lawsuits. Insurance codes are designed to deny payment and coverage, not make it better.
It's time for a change.
But they often contain one important flaw. They seem to assume that if something goes wrong, it is the fault of the patient. He or she eats too much or smokes too much or drinks too much.
But not all health events are a matter of choice. Everything that happens to us is not the result of bad habits.
I appear to be healthy, I exercise, I am not overweight. I don't smoke and haven't had a drink in decades. I don't do soft drinks.
But I was refused health insurance because I have high cholesterol. Not heart disease, mind you, but high cholesterol, a condition that could cause heart disease. About the time I decided to address this issue with drugs, unsuccessful with diet, I had to change doctors because of a dispute between the insurance company and my doctor's company over how much money insurance would pay for my visits.
My new doctor ordered a battery of tests. Tests that insurance companies don't like to pay for, because they don't really affect treatment. If you have high cholesterol, the treatment is to take statins, it doesn't really matter why you have high cholesterol. They claim the doctors order the test to make more money.
But my doc wanted to know, because it might dictate how to attack my high cholesterol. It turns out I have a genetically-caused situation. I don't know how to describe it, other than remembering that I had something like three markers for the genetic issue, and if I had the fourth marker, chances are I would already be dead, or face dementia because of plaques in the brain, or worse.
The point is that I have a genetic condition, not modifiable by diet, that could affect my health. And for that reason, I was denied health insurance by private companies. I had to scramble to find a "public option" that would take me.
I am not alone. Many have conditions that allow the insurance industry to decide, after being paid many tens of thousands of dollars, as I paid them, that a patient isn't worth the risk. Heart disease. Broken bones. Family history of cancer. Diabetes. Go away.
The game is rigged in their favor. I know this as a citizen, and having watched them from a chair on the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners. The market mechanism does not work very well when talking about health care, nor insurance.
Our system is broken. We can get great care in America, and I know that, too. I have had exemplary doctors, and I am a demanding patient. But the "system of health care" is broken. There is too much paper work. Doctors face unnecessary lawsuits. Insurance codes are designed to deny payment and coverage, not make it better.
It's time for a change.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
I want "public option" for health insurance
When I changed employment a couple of years ago, I turned a company over to some very deserving people. We had just a couple employees when we started, about 10 when I left 25 years later. But one of the hallmarks of this small business over those years was that we provided health insurance.
I never wanted to face a situation where one of "my" people got sick and could not afford a doctor.
Leaving the company meant leaving the company health plan. Which also meant, in Oregon, that private insurance was perfectly free to deny me coverage if they didn't want me. And that is what PacificSource said.
Since I had high cholesterol, they didn't want me.
Which meant that I could not get "private insurance." I enrolled instead in the Oregon Medical Insurance Plan, the plan of last resort for people denied coverage for health or financial reasons.
Fortunately I can afford the $500 per month I pay to get the medical care I need. That's before I go to the doctor, by the way. Last year I doubled my cost, and paid more than $12,000, because I had a kidney stone difficult to diagnose.
Now, what is the difference between OMIP, the Veterans Administration, Medicare and Medicaid, and the so-called and much hated "public option" that the Republicans are frothing at the mouth about?
Not that much. Except that it might be able to offer some lower costs, because it would insure more people, not just the sick and older and poorer.
It might actually be an "insurance," which by spreading risk among a general population instead of cherry picking the healthy people to insure, could provide lower cost care to many more people.
I did not like being told that since I might get sick in the future, that I was uninsurable. I don't think it is right. But you know, I am glad Oregon had a "public option" for people the insurance companies don't want to take a risk on.
But I don't want my neighbors or their children to have to either suffer without a doctor's care, I don't want them to have to decide whether to buy milk or pay rent or go to the doctor. This is a natiional issue and it is time for a national solution. We are wasting billions of dollars under the lack of system we have now, under the illusion of free choice and "market" economics. That is just a canard.
This is a great country and we have a great many very smart people. We also have a Republican Party that is trying to scare people on behalf of drug companies and insurance companies that make billions of dollars at the public trough, all the while they gouge the people at the margins.
We need health care reform. We need it now.
I never wanted to face a situation where one of "my" people got sick and could not afford a doctor.
Leaving the company meant leaving the company health plan. Which also meant, in Oregon, that private insurance was perfectly free to deny me coverage if they didn't want me. And that is what PacificSource said.
Since I had high cholesterol, they didn't want me.
Which meant that I could not get "private insurance." I enrolled instead in the Oregon Medical Insurance Plan, the plan of last resort for people denied coverage for health or financial reasons.
Fortunately I can afford the $500 per month I pay to get the medical care I need. That's before I go to the doctor, by the way. Last year I doubled my cost, and paid more than $12,000, because I had a kidney stone difficult to diagnose.
Now, what is the difference between OMIP, the Veterans Administration, Medicare and Medicaid, and the so-called and much hated "public option" that the Republicans are frothing at the mouth about?
Not that much. Except that it might be able to offer some lower costs, because it would insure more people, not just the sick and older and poorer.
It might actually be an "insurance," which by spreading risk among a general population instead of cherry picking the healthy people to insure, could provide lower cost care to many more people.
I did not like being told that since I might get sick in the future, that I was uninsurable. I don't think it is right. But you know, I am glad Oregon had a "public option" for people the insurance companies don't want to take a risk on.
But I don't want my neighbors or their children to have to either suffer without a doctor's care, I don't want them to have to decide whether to buy milk or pay rent or go to the doctor. This is a natiional issue and it is time for a national solution. We are wasting billions of dollars under the lack of system we have now, under the illusion of free choice and "market" economics. That is just a canard.
This is a great country and we have a great many very smart people. We also have a Republican Party that is trying to scare people on behalf of drug companies and insurance companies that make billions of dollars at the public trough, all the while they gouge the people at the margins.
We need health care reform. We need it now.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Republican lies about health care
It gets more bizarre by the day. Now the Republicans are telling ugly lies to scare people:
Seniors and the disabled "will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." -- Sarah Palin, Friday, August 7th, 2009.
There is no such language anywhere in any health care proposal. Republicans are making this stuff up. It is ugly, and the minds that create this crap, especially that of the narcissistic Sarah Palin, are ugly.
We need to make health care better in America. We need to expand insurance coverage to friends and neighbors who have lost their jobs, or can't get insurance because one of their parents had diabetes. We need to create a system that will take care of our children.
It is time Republicans stopped lying about the "public option," which is just another optional insurance program like Medicare, more "private" than V.A. hospitals. It is time Republicans stopped lying about "death panels." It is time Republicans stopped denying that it is immoral to let millions of Americans go without seeing a doctor when they are sick.
We have a problem with health care in America. It is time to find a solution.
Seniors and the disabled "will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." -- Sarah Palin, Friday, August 7th, 2009.
There is no such language anywhere in any health care proposal. Republicans are making this stuff up. It is ugly, and the minds that create this crap, especially that of the narcissistic Sarah Palin, are ugly.
We need to make health care better in America. We need to expand insurance coverage to friends and neighbors who have lost their jobs, or can't get insurance because one of their parents had diabetes. We need to create a system that will take care of our children.
It is time Republicans stopped lying about the "public option," which is just another optional insurance program like Medicare, more "private" than V.A. hospitals. It is time Republicans stopped lying about "death panels." It is time Republicans stopped denying that it is immoral to let millions of Americans go without seeing a doctor when they are sick.
We have a problem with health care in America. It is time to find a solution.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
The health care onion
First, there is the debate about fixing this nation's health care. Inside that, there is the debate about the health care debate, whether it is being rigged. Inside that, there is the possibility that Republicans don't care so much about health care, but want to hand Obama a loss. Any loss.
Where to begin?
First off, the lie that we have the best health care system in the world needs to be dismissed. We do not have the best health care system in the world. Look up the statistics on your own. Infant mortality? We rank ninth in the industrial world. Efficiency? Thirty percent of our health care dollars go into the paper work war between doctors and insurers. Etc.
Add to that the power of corporate oligopolies; the drug companies, insurance companies, the physician-owned hospitals and groups of prescribing docs who own radiology centers, etc. We have a recipe for profit, not efficiency nor patient care.
It is important to realize that there is a difference in our "health care system" or lack of it, and the quality of care one might receive from an excellent doctor. That may indeed be world class.
But that is not what we are talking about.
One of the really wrong ideas in this debate is that "the market" will provide health care. It won't. Markets need a tight relationship between money spent and service received. You don' t have a rational market where the payer for service (insurance companies) is not the recipient (patient) of service. Patients want the best care available. Insureres want the lowest cost.
And yet, one of the closest ideas we have to bringing "market" dynamics to the table is being thrown away. Having a "public option" would fit quite well with market economics. If the public option is no good, it will fail. If it is good, it will help bring down costs, while still allowing people to choose.
And we already have "public options." Medicare. Medicaid. Most of the noise about the "pubic option" is based on fear that the gravy train won't stand up to real competition.
Even sending our poor to hospital emergency rooms is a form of "public option." An insanely inefficient option. It slows down "emergency" rooms. It is expensive. It shifts costs, so that those of us with insurance fund the system by paying $6 for a single aspirin. That is a "public option" of irrationality.
It is amazing that Republicans are again able to convince people to scream against their own interests. The men and women working at the gas station and the sporting goods store and driving truck, the retired, and certainly those who have been fired from jobs where they had insurance, should support health care reform. But misinformation, fear mongering and the politics of hate (look at those screaming faces) remain effective weapons.
We can't afford to spend more of our income on health care. It is breaking our finances, draining our future. We can't leave our neighbors without health care: That is immoral.
The time has come to look at alternatives.
Where to begin?
First off, the lie that we have the best health care system in the world needs to be dismissed. We do not have the best health care system in the world. Look up the statistics on your own. Infant mortality? We rank ninth in the industrial world. Efficiency? Thirty percent of our health care dollars go into the paper work war between doctors and insurers. Etc.
Add to that the power of corporate oligopolies; the drug companies, insurance companies, the physician-owned hospitals and groups of prescribing docs who own radiology centers, etc. We have a recipe for profit, not efficiency nor patient care.
It is important to realize that there is a difference in our "health care system" or lack of it, and the quality of care one might receive from an excellent doctor. That may indeed be world class.
But that is not what we are talking about.
One of the really wrong ideas in this debate is that "the market" will provide health care. It won't. Markets need a tight relationship between money spent and service received. You don' t have a rational market where the payer for service (insurance companies) is not the recipient (patient) of service. Patients want the best care available. Insureres want the lowest cost.
And yet, one of the closest ideas we have to bringing "market" dynamics to the table is being thrown away. Having a "public option" would fit quite well with market economics. If the public option is no good, it will fail. If it is good, it will help bring down costs, while still allowing people to choose.
And we already have "public options." Medicare. Medicaid. Most of the noise about the "pubic option" is based on fear that the gravy train won't stand up to real competition.
Even sending our poor to hospital emergency rooms is a form of "public option." An insanely inefficient option. It slows down "emergency" rooms. It is expensive. It shifts costs, so that those of us with insurance fund the system by paying $6 for a single aspirin. That is a "public option" of irrationality.
It is amazing that Republicans are again able to convince people to scream against their own interests. The men and women working at the gas station and the sporting goods store and driving truck, the retired, and certainly those who have been fired from jobs where they had insurance, should support health care reform. But misinformation, fear mongering and the politics of hate (look at those screaming faces) remain effective weapons.
We can't afford to spend more of our income on health care. It is breaking our finances, draining our future. We can't leave our neighbors without health care: That is immoral.
The time has come to look at alternatives.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Krugman is wrong
Paul Krugman is a brilliant man, he has a Nobel Prize in economics. I am not and I don't.
But Krugman is wrong on a very important point regarding the financial crisis. He thinks government should regulate bankers' pay (read it here).
He says the current method of compensation created an "incentive" for the abuses that brought the world's financial system nearly to its knees. Perhaps. It was certainly a factor. But there were many interacting factors, and we have to be careful about which we choose to "fix," and potential unintended consequences.
Compensation, or paychecks, is a perfect place to encourage the power of the market place, and absolutely the wrong place for government intervention.
What needs to be done is to foster consequences in the system, where firms that fail, and by definition those who lead them, are punished by the market, without threatening the entire system.
Generally this will mean making sure that bad decisions by one firm, say an AIG, don't threaten everyone's welfare. This can include limits on market share, capitalization requirements, reducing barriers to entry into a market so that competitors can flourish, etc. And, more than anything else, transparency.
It does not mean meddling directly in compensation issues. That is a guarantee of inefficiency, mediocre leadership, a lack of creativity and it crosses a line of how we want our financial system to function. Capitalism versus something else.
We don't want our government to govern companies directly, except to create a system that preserves itself and its function to society while allowing those companies to bring efficiencies, offer new products, and to fail when their decisions are faulty.
A fine distinction, perhaps, but an important one.
But Krugman is wrong on a very important point regarding the financial crisis. He thinks government should regulate bankers' pay (read it here).
He says the current method of compensation created an "incentive" for the abuses that brought the world's financial system nearly to its knees. Perhaps. It was certainly a factor. But there were many interacting factors, and we have to be careful about which we choose to "fix," and potential unintended consequences.
Compensation, or paychecks, is a perfect place to encourage the power of the market place, and absolutely the wrong place for government intervention.
What needs to be done is to foster consequences in the system, where firms that fail, and by definition those who lead them, are punished by the market, without threatening the entire system.
Generally this will mean making sure that bad decisions by one firm, say an AIG, don't threaten everyone's welfare. This can include limits on market share, capitalization requirements, reducing barriers to entry into a market so that competitors can flourish, etc. And, more than anything else, transparency.
It does not mean meddling directly in compensation issues. That is a guarantee of inefficiency, mediocre leadership, a lack of creativity and it crosses a line of how we want our financial system to function. Capitalism versus something else.
We don't want our government to govern companies directly, except to create a system that preserves itself and its function to society while allowing those companies to bring efficiencies, offer new products, and to fail when their decisions are faulty.
A fine distinction, perhaps, but an important one.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Deceptive right wing
Now we have Republican Sen. Bruce Starr saying that we need to change Oregon law in the aftermath of the horrible and bizarre killing of a young pregnant mother, Heather Snively.
This is a clear and blatant attempt to redefine what is a person.
"I hope to never see another case like we've seen," Starr said. "But in the event that we do, where you have an unbelievably barbaric crime and clearly two victims, both victims will receive proper justice."
Victims of murder don't receive justice, Mr. Starr. They are dead. A corpse. There is no person to receive that justice. There is no justice for the dead, only for their families and for society.
Starr's lack of thinking on this issue is typical. It is also disgustingly calculating. But what is most disturbing about this cold manipulation of grief is that it is deceitful and opportunistic. Adding to the charges faced by the abomination who carried out this crime would not have prevented Heather's murder.
To think otherwise is absurd. The woman who killed this young mother and cut the fetus from her womb is a monster. Probably insane. And very unlikely to have been deterred by the risk of a second murder charge.
Defining the fetus as a victim is a way of saying the fetus is a person. Calling it murder is a backhanded way of conferring status as a person. We haven't done that yet in Oregon, and we have to do that first if we want to be rational in expanding the homicide stature in this way.
The last time the Religious Right tried to do this in Oregon was in the aftermath of the Laci Peterson murder. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.
Starr is callously taking advantage of this tragedy to promote a political agenda. That is wrong. He is slimy for doing so.
This is a clear and blatant attempt to redefine what is a person.
"I hope to never see another case like we've seen," Starr said. "But in the event that we do, where you have an unbelievably barbaric crime and clearly two victims, both victims will receive proper justice."
Victims of murder don't receive justice, Mr. Starr. They are dead. A corpse. There is no person to receive that justice. There is no justice for the dead, only for their families and for society.
Starr's lack of thinking on this issue is typical. It is also disgustingly calculating. But what is most disturbing about this cold manipulation of grief is that it is deceitful and opportunistic. Adding to the charges faced by the abomination who carried out this crime would not have prevented Heather's murder.
To think otherwise is absurd. The woman who killed this young mother and cut the fetus from her womb is a monster. Probably insane. And very unlikely to have been deterred by the risk of a second murder charge.
Defining the fetus as a victim is a way of saying the fetus is a person. Calling it murder is a backhanded way of conferring status as a person. We haven't done that yet in Oregon, and we have to do that first if we want to be rational in expanding the homicide stature in this way.
The last time the Religious Right tried to do this in Oregon was in the aftermath of the Laci Peterson murder. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.
Starr is callously taking advantage of this tragedy to promote a political agenda. That is wrong. He is slimy for doing so.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Oh, please
Must we? Must we spend a precious week and precious energy debating whether President Obama dissed those with special needs on Jay Leno this week?
Get over it, Politically Correct Police. Obama was laughing at himself, his lack of skills at bowling. He used an accurate image, if not a particularly sensitive one. He was obviously not laughing at the disabled. Intent is everything.
Watch the interview here. It was smart, it was entertaining, it was informative.
There is no issue. The terminally serious, who believe all things human must be greeted with deep, long looks of uplifted anguish, are bores. Those who are working up their outrage are using the disabled to fulfill needs we can only guess at. That includes you, Palin.
We can laugh at ourselves and at each other and still love. We don't need "moralist gotcha guys" sifting every phrase for possible liabilities, when what we need is real work in this real life solving real problems.
Get over it.
Get over it, Politically Correct Police. Obama was laughing at himself, his lack of skills at bowling. He used an accurate image, if not a particularly sensitive one. He was obviously not laughing at the disabled. Intent is everything.
Watch the interview here. It was smart, it was entertaining, it was informative.
There is no issue. The terminally serious, who believe all things human must be greeted with deep, long looks of uplifted anguish, are bores. Those who are working up their outrage are using the disabled to fulfill needs we can only guess at. That includes you, Palin.
We can laugh at ourselves and at each other and still love. We don't need "moralist gotcha guys" sifting every phrase for possible liabilities, when what we need is real work in this real life solving real problems.
Get over it.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
A deal is a deal
Look, can we get over all this gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair about the bonuses at AIG? It is not productive and threatens our economic recovery.
Yes, it stinks that AIG is paying out $165 million in bonuses to the boys (and girls?) whose activities brought their company not only to its knees, but into government ownership (80 percent). Barney Frank screams his outrage. President Obama says it is about values.
Okay. But a key value in business is keeping your word. An important business activity is signing contracts, and then honoring them. A deal is a deal.
Or nobody will do business with you.
There may be a whole slew of good reasons why those bonuses should be paid. There are many reasons why it may hurt to do so. Read the letter from AIG CEO Edward M. Liddy to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner (read it here). He didn't like it either.
But the bottom line is that contracts need to be honored.
Now that the government owns most of AIG, the last thing it should do is destroy the company. But that will be the result if government runs the business like government, instead of like a business.
Yes, it stinks that AIG is paying out $165 million in bonuses to the boys (and girls?) whose activities brought their company not only to its knees, but into government ownership (80 percent). Barney Frank screams his outrage. President Obama says it is about values.
Okay. But a key value in business is keeping your word. An important business activity is signing contracts, and then honoring them. A deal is a deal.
Or nobody will do business with you.
There may be a whole slew of good reasons why those bonuses should be paid. There are many reasons why it may hurt to do so. Read the letter from AIG CEO Edward M. Liddy to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner (read it here). He didn't like it either.
But the bottom line is that contracts need to be honored.
Now that the government owns most of AIG, the last thing it should do is destroy the company. But that will be the result if government runs the business like government, instead of like a business.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Thank god for Brooks
A voice of reason, more conservative than liberal, more rational than either.
David Brooks has hit it just right. Read it here.
David Brooks has hit it just right. Read it here.
Central Oregon's pride
"LOS ANGELES (AP) — A former Oregon congressman has pleaded not guilty in Los Angeles to money laundering and tax charges relating to an investment scheme that allegedly cost investors more than $10 million.
Wes Cooley, who represented Oregon's 2nd Congressional District for one term in the 1990s, entered his plea Monday in federal court. (Cooley, a Reagan Republican, lied about his service in Vietnam.)
An indictment filed in January alleges the 76-year-old Cooley and two other men lured victims into purchasing unregistered stock in Bidbay.com Inc. by telling them the company would be acquired by eBay for $20 per share.
In 2002 alone, Cooley allegedly took more than $1.1 million in investor cash and laundered it to conceal the fraud scheme.
Richard A. Moss, Cooley's attorney, declined to comment on the charges."
Wes Cooley, who represented Oregon's 2nd Congressional District for one term in the 1990s, entered his plea Monday in federal court. (Cooley, a Reagan Republican, lied about his service in Vietnam.)
An indictment filed in January alleges the 76-year-old Cooley and two other men lured victims into purchasing unregistered stock in Bidbay.com Inc. by telling them the company would be acquired by eBay for $20 per share.
In 2002 alone, Cooley allegedly took more than $1.1 million in investor cash and laundered it to conceal the fraud scheme.
Richard A. Moss, Cooley's attorney, declined to comment on the charges."
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Limbaugh the fascist
Destroyer.Divider.
Fascist.
Rush Limbaugh is vile, a lying, bigoted pompous ass of a man who would destroy hope for political gain.
Listening to him is reminiscent of public speeches of Brown Shirts in Germany after WW I. Look it up.
He is also the current leader of the Republican Party.
In a speech given this last Saturday, February 28, 2009, to the Conservative Political Action Conference, he spewed his peculiar form of right wing bile sweetened with false patriotism and misinformation (transcript here). It is the same brew first concocted by Gingrich and Rove and fed to conservative talk show hosts via a long handled spoon and web blogs.
Individuals will thrive, said Limbaugh, "if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government." That is exactly what happened, Rush, you broke government oversight and now we have a mortgage crisis, a banking crisis, the highest unemployment in a generation, because guys like you (how is your drug problem coming along, by the way?) succeeded in that little superstition.
Rush says conservatives believe in "...Liberty, Freedom. [Applause] And the pursuit of happiness. [Applause] Those of you watching at home may wonder why this is being applauded. We conservatives think all three are under assault."
Right again, they have been under assault for 30 years, but by conservatives like Limbaugh who believe in spying on civilians, government intervention on the deathbed and any other bed occupied by people they don't like, and welfare for Big Corporate donors.
As for happiness, most of the country understands they aren't happier than they were 8 years ago, and they know who is responsible.
"..the bigotry that we're all charged with, just so you across the United States of America know, and you'll see demonstrated here as the afternoon goes on, doesn't exist on our side," said Limbaugh.
Strange he should bring this up. Actually, Limbaugh is quite the bigot, which is why he probably doesn't recognize it. Which is why he featured "Barak the Magic Negro," on his radio show. (See more here). It was spread most ominously by a candidate for Republican national Chairman Chip Saltsman.
"... take a look at all the constituency groups that for 50 years have been depending on the Democrat Party to improve their lives. And you tell me if you find any. They're still complaining, still griping about the same problems. Their problems don't get fixed by government. And those lives have been poisoned," says Limbaugh.
Um, Rush? Have you checked in with who is sitting in the Oval Office? Ya think that would have happened 50 years ago? What a stupid, stupid thing to say. Only such a bloated, self important fool could so blindly make a statement like that.
Then Limbaugh displays a stunningly ignorant profile of history when he asks, "How did the United States of America become the world's lone super power, the world's economic engine, the most prosperous opportunity for an advanced lifestyle that humanity has ever known? How did this happen?"
I don't know Rush, it has been a long 240 plus years. Probably quite a few "hows" in that time. Some good, some bad, some great, some accidental. Rather than ask, why don't you answer the question?
And then, with a false flourish, he accuses with a question: "And why pray tell does the President of the United States want to destroy it?" And the evidence? None. He makes a statement without saying it, the cowardly technique of O'Reilly, Hannity and the rest of the angry hate mongers of the right.
Rush, it was you and Cheney and that little guy from Texas who damn near succeeded in destroying this nation. The mess our President is trying to fix was the result of your policies, not his.
Now we learn that suspension of the First Amendment, bombing of apartment houses right here in the U.S., spying on civilians were all considered. They entertained the most flagrant abuses of power ever conceived in this nation, violations against what it means to be America. That is the legacy of Rush, Cheney and Rove.
There is more. The gasbag goes on and on and on, and the right wingers applaud, even when he makes jokes that God wants to be Rush Limbaugh. What a sick, sorry sight, what a terrible thing to have happened to real conservatives. Real conservatives need to speak up, and throw these idiots to the wolves.
Beware the knives
Liberals have their knives out for fat cat bankers. They should put them away and take a deep breath.
The fact is, there are very few people capable of running banks, large or small, and most of them already are. There is no benefit to turning banks over to bureaucrats, or destroying them and the value of stock often owned by pensions, state retirement accounts, and people who worked hard their whole life.
There are many causes to the credit crisis, and banks are certainly at the center of the storm. That does not mean that individual bankers or banks are villains. Much of the blame goes to Phil Graham and a lot of misguided Democrats who changed the rules and allowed banks to invest in riskier enterprises and give loans to people who did not deserve them.
A whole generation forgot the lesson of the Great Depression and lived beyond their means. We are all at fault, and it doesn't help to point fingers at who might be more at fault than others.
So what to do now? Hidden beneath the headlines is the fact that many "risky" banks are actually making money. They look bad on paper because the value of the assets they hold is unknown. Since the markets have frozen up, it is hard to value property, but the regulators are forcing a "mark to market" strategy that is forcing banks to revalue property at low, low levels.
Because of this, banks are flirting with capitalization ratios that make it appear they are in worse shape than they are, if the same assets were valued over a longer term.
The banks need time, and we all need some sort of confidence in our real estate markets, which requires banks to be able to lend.
First, according to many, we need to pull our banks back from the brink. The best way to do this is to follow the advice of commentator Jim Cramer and implement the same kind of program of "forbearance" that saved the S&L situation of the 1980s. Once there is a market for real estate, the banks can mark the value of their assets in prudent ways, or dispose of them. Until then, the exercise is not only futile, but damaging.
Secondly, the government needs to provide guaranteed home refinancing for everybody at 4%. This will start the process of reducing inventory overhang, and doesn't punish those who bought wisely.
But the current mob mentality of the left, to cut off the heads of bankers and destroy the banks they lead, is horrifically irresponsible. It is the banking system that government should reform, not banks. That is done with laws, not seizure. Once prudent rules are back in place, and the market stabilizes, we want bankers running our banks, and we need our banks to succeed.
Or else the crisis is just beginning, and will be made worse by the Left's lack of understanding and disdain for money.
The fact is, there are very few people capable of running banks, large or small, and most of them already are. There is no benefit to turning banks over to bureaucrats, or destroying them and the value of stock often owned by pensions, state retirement accounts, and people who worked hard their whole life.
There are many causes to the credit crisis, and banks are certainly at the center of the storm. That does not mean that individual bankers or banks are villains. Much of the blame goes to Phil Graham and a lot of misguided Democrats who changed the rules and allowed banks to invest in riskier enterprises and give loans to people who did not deserve them.
A whole generation forgot the lesson of the Great Depression and lived beyond their means. We are all at fault, and it doesn't help to point fingers at who might be more at fault than others.
So what to do now? Hidden beneath the headlines is the fact that many "risky" banks are actually making money. They look bad on paper because the value of the assets they hold is unknown. Since the markets have frozen up, it is hard to value property, but the regulators are forcing a "mark to market" strategy that is forcing banks to revalue property at low, low levels.
Because of this, banks are flirting with capitalization ratios that make it appear they are in worse shape than they are, if the same assets were valued over a longer term.
The banks need time, and we all need some sort of confidence in our real estate markets, which requires banks to be able to lend.
First, according to many, we need to pull our banks back from the brink. The best way to do this is to follow the advice of commentator Jim Cramer and implement the same kind of program of "forbearance" that saved the S&L situation of the 1980s. Once there is a market for real estate, the banks can mark the value of their assets in prudent ways, or dispose of them. Until then, the exercise is not only futile, but damaging.
Secondly, the government needs to provide guaranteed home refinancing for everybody at 4%. This will start the process of reducing inventory overhang, and doesn't punish those who bought wisely.
But the current mob mentality of the left, to cut off the heads of bankers and destroy the banks they lead, is horrifically irresponsible. It is the banking system that government should reform, not banks. That is done with laws, not seizure. Once prudent rules are back in place, and the market stabilizes, we want bankers running our banks, and we need our banks to succeed.
Or else the crisis is just beginning, and will be made worse by the Left's lack of understanding and disdain for money.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Republicans out to destroy hope
It is outrageous that Republicans are willing to harm the country for political gain.
"Republican aides said they would seize on every instance of potential abuse as a way of stirring public doubt about the bill." (Read full story here).
One of the major challenges facing the country is a loss of confidence. It deeply affects markets, and behavior of our citizens, of consumers. And yet, Republicans are willing to do whatever they can to further destroy confidence in efforts to jump start the economy.
"Fearing fear itself." We have a two party system. Challenges to the status quo are good, debate is good.
But voters repudiated cheap shots designed only to destroy, rejected right wing return to the politics of fear. Republicans now praying that the country and its citizens become worse off so they can claim "I told you so," and do better in the next election should think about the risks more clearly.
It is possible that every one of those who tried to destroy, instead of come together and build, will lose their pulpit. Let's start with Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, and Michael Steele, the Republican national chairman. These gentlemen deserve some close attention.
"Republican aides said they would seize on every instance of potential abuse as a way of stirring public doubt about the bill." (Read full story here).
One of the major challenges facing the country is a loss of confidence. It deeply affects markets, and behavior of our citizens, of consumers. And yet, Republicans are willing to do whatever they can to further destroy confidence in efforts to jump start the economy.
"Fearing fear itself." We have a two party system. Challenges to the status quo are good, debate is good.
But voters repudiated cheap shots designed only to destroy, rejected right wing return to the politics of fear. Republicans now praying that the country and its citizens become worse off so they can claim "I told you so," and do better in the next election should think about the risks more clearly.
It is possible that every one of those who tried to destroy, instead of come together and build, will lose their pulpit. Let's start with Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, and Michael Steele, the Republican national chairman. These gentlemen deserve some close attention.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
The left doesn't get it
Okay, it is not like we have to "prove" the left doesn't like money and doesn't understand it. By now that should be common knowledge. But egregious examples still need to be highlighted.
Today's New York Times (read it here) calls for adding money to the stimulus bill to build 1.5 million units of affordable housing. This will house poor people and create jobs, according to the Times.
Ladies and gentlemen: is there anybody out there who doesn't know this crisis was sparked by overbuilding? That the markets are flooded with housing? That there are empty houses and apartments and condos all over this nation? That building more units makes the problem worse, not better?
The same issue of the Times has a couple of good articles on the stimulus plan and the politics. But today's editorial makes it so blindingly obvious that the left will never cease doing the wrong things for all the right reasons.
Today's New York Times (read it here) calls for adding money to the stimulus bill to build 1.5 million units of affordable housing. This will house poor people and create jobs, according to the Times.
Ladies and gentlemen: is there anybody out there who doesn't know this crisis was sparked by overbuilding? That the markets are flooded with housing? That there are empty houses and apartments and condos all over this nation? That building more units makes the problem worse, not better?
The same issue of the Times has a couple of good articles on the stimulus plan and the politics. But today's editorial makes it so blindingly obvious that the left will never cease doing the wrong things for all the right reasons.
Democrats and economic ignorance
It is time to clamber through the charred landscape left us after the presidency of Dick Cheney and George Bush. The republic survived, though in far worse shape than when those ignorant ideologues seized power. Long live the republic.
But the dangers are ever present and never past, and now they come in the form of tired liberals of shallow knowledge of economics like Nancy Pelosi, or Ted Kulongoski. They come in the form of pay back schemes from left-leaning power centers like the unions, who believe that since they put Obama in power, they should now get theirs.
These need to be resisted. And there is hope. See this column by conservative writer David Brooks of the New York Times.
People, you have to know how good it feels to be in the center, shooting at both left and right. Of course, both sides are firing back, so being in the middle means you have to dodge twice as fast. But it's good to swing the gun around in a new direction.
Back to the topic: The Democrats under Pelosi played politics with the stimulus bill, in exactly the same way that Cheney/Bush played politics with legislation following 9/11. They loaded it with ideological non-sequiters. Paybacks and pay-offs. They took advantage of their position and the situation.
Cheney / Bush did it under the guise of external threat and patriotism. Pelosi and ilk are doing it under the cover of economic crisis. It is the same thing, from a different direction. It is politics as usual.
And it is no more honest, and no more fair or right or proper or effective, pick an adjective. A stimulus plan is needed. More than a half million people lost their jobs last month. Unemployment is over 7 percent. It hits 10 percent and we have social unrest.
And those people without jobs need health insurance. They need extended unemployment benefits. They do not need family planning advice. They do not need more grass seed on the National Mall. We do not need to spend the $100 million (over 10 years) on 150 new state troopers (absolutely no value added to Oregon) that Kulongoski ramrodded a couple of years ago.
Instead, how about widening the bridge over Squaw Creek (sorry) in Sisters, Oregon? How about a power generation plant near Madras, Oregon using wind, solar, and natural gas? How about every Oregonian come up with a project that (1) would put men and women to work and (2) would be a long term investment in Oregon.
Pork is not investment. Protectionism is a failed economic strategy. Stronger unions can destroy the productivity needed for us to work our way out of this economic crevasse that we all slid into together thinking that we could borrow money to buy things we didn't need and couldn't afford.
The illusion that government can fix this without our paying the bill is false. The bill on the government bailout will still need be paid.
Unfortunately, it will be paid by our children, my twin girls, and your children, by a reduction in their standard of living. Added to that bill will be our medicare and our social security and the war in Iraq.
It is a crushing burden, actually, and I am a little ashamed about it. We could have done so much better for them. We should have done so much better. But what is done is done, and the goal now is to start the process of recovery and not make it worse.
But the dangers are ever present and never past, and now they come in the form of tired liberals of shallow knowledge of economics like Nancy Pelosi, or Ted Kulongoski. They come in the form of pay back schemes from left-leaning power centers like the unions, who believe that since they put Obama in power, they should now get theirs.
These need to be resisted. And there is hope. See this column by conservative writer David Brooks of the New York Times.
People, you have to know how good it feels to be in the center, shooting at both left and right. Of course, both sides are firing back, so being in the middle means you have to dodge twice as fast. But it's good to swing the gun around in a new direction.
Back to the topic: The Democrats under Pelosi played politics with the stimulus bill, in exactly the same way that Cheney/Bush played politics with legislation following 9/11. They loaded it with ideological non-sequiters. Paybacks and pay-offs. They took advantage of their position and the situation.
Cheney / Bush did it under the guise of external threat and patriotism. Pelosi and ilk are doing it under the cover of economic crisis. It is the same thing, from a different direction. It is politics as usual.
And it is no more honest, and no more fair or right or proper or effective, pick an adjective. A stimulus plan is needed. More than a half million people lost their jobs last month. Unemployment is over 7 percent. It hits 10 percent and we have social unrest.
And those people without jobs need health insurance. They need extended unemployment benefits. They do not need family planning advice. They do not need more grass seed on the National Mall. We do not need to spend the $100 million (over 10 years) on 150 new state troopers (absolutely no value added to Oregon) that Kulongoski ramrodded a couple of years ago.
Instead, how about widening the bridge over Squaw Creek (sorry) in Sisters, Oregon? How about a power generation plant near Madras, Oregon using wind, solar, and natural gas? How about every Oregonian come up with a project that (1) would put men and women to work and (2) would be a long term investment in Oregon.
Pork is not investment. Protectionism is a failed economic strategy. Stronger unions can destroy the productivity needed for us to work our way out of this economic crevasse that we all slid into together thinking that we could borrow money to buy things we didn't need and couldn't afford.
The illusion that government can fix this without our paying the bill is false. The bill on the government bailout will still need be paid.
Unfortunately, it will be paid by our children, my twin girls, and your children, by a reduction in their standard of living. Added to that bill will be our medicare and our social security and the war in Iraq.
It is a crushing burden, actually, and I am a little ashamed about it. We could have done so much better for them. We should have done so much better. But what is done is done, and the goal now is to start the process of recovery and not make it worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)