Medical Care for the Guard

Inadequate medical and psychological care is being provided to the active duty forces, let alone the Guard and Reserve. Pinching pennies in this area is going to have an effect on readiness, which is going to have an effect on national security.

I think we have gone beyond the somewhat deceptive contracts that were foisted on the Guardspeople. I don't feel that the administration has held up its end of the deal even according to the letter of those contracts.

And I'm not sure that all those Guardspeople thoroughly understood the contracts that they signed. We've all seen the advertising for Guard recruits that has widely been lampooned as "two weeks a year my *" There's a lot of fine print in those contracts, and a lot of recruiters that are less than forthright in describing those contracts to naive young people--especially if they're running behind on their quota.

I just think that there is an irony associated with our insistence that members of the Guard live up to every jot and tittle in the contract (and maybe even beyond, if you consider the abuse of stop-loss), but allow them no recourse when we (the American people) do not live up to our obligations towards them.

On a related but separate front, I was pleased to see that counselors are once again allowed to help returning service people fill out their disability paperwork to help them get the proper level of benefits. It is a shame that it took stories like this one in the press to shame the military into doing the right thing.

A Solar Proposal

The US should make a major investment in nuclear and solar power generation. There is an interesting article in this month's Scientific American regarding a proposal that would use existing technology to expand solar power in the desert southwest to make a major dent in our energy needs.

Scientific American article on solar power

The Rhetoric on Social Security and Medicare

Ironically, most of the rhetoric on both sides is true. Cuts in Social Security or Medicare would have a big impact on the quality of life of seniors, many of whom may not be able to get a job to supplement their "entitlements."

On the other hand, it is demonstrably true that Social Security payments have increased faster than the salaries for several key segments of the economy. In particular, the current system increases Social Security payments at a rate faster than inflation through the existing COLAs.

Increasing taxes is not a "free" solution either, for reasons that have been beaten to death in previous postings.

The last time I participated in one of the Concord Coalition's sessions as a participant (rather than an organizer), we were able to reach a compromise on Social Security within our "working group." Our compromise was to limit COLAs to the rate of inflation, increase the retirement age, and lift the ceiling on payroll taxes. This was some years ago, so the cost estimates we used are probably well out of date today.

We also laid waste to most agricultural subsidies and made specific cuts to the DOD. I can't remember if we ended up raising the gas tax, but I remember that it was fiercely debated in our group.

One of the more counterintuitive suggestions for dealing with a portion of the growth in Medicare is reducing the role of private insurance companies in providing Medicare. Obviously, this does not resolve the problem, but it would apparently result in a significant cost savings.

Here's a pretty good estimate of the impacts of some of the different proposals for adjusting Social Security (not including privatization):
CBO Report on Social Security

I haven't seen any solid Social Security privatization proposals that don't involve either screwing over current taxpayers or adding hundreds of billions to the national debt.

When Social Security was put into place, the elderly were the poorest age group. That is no longer the case. This disconnect is leading to some young people to challenge Social Security more than they have in the past. For example:
Curious Cat Blog entry

(I'm not endorsing the viewpoint in this blog. I'm pointing out that it is a viewpoint that is becoming more prevalent among young people.)

Here is a similar CBO Report on Medicare and Medicaid.

Social Security was not defined as a welfare program, but it was structured as an income transfer program. A strict means-test could be considered a recognition of what the Social Security program has always been. It has never been an investment fund, so it doesn't make sense to compare "returns" to those available from an investment fund.

Something will have to be done to deal with outstanding obligations. As I see it, the proposals amount to a combination of one or more of the following:

1. Disavow the outstanding obligations altogether. (This is a fairly radical Libertarian proposal. I don't think that even "mainstream" Libertarians have bought into this one.)


2. Increase payroll taxes, either by a straight increase in the tax rate or by lifting the cap on total "contributions" over the course of the year. (Doesn't "contributions" sound a lot better than "taxes?")


3. Restrict growth in outlays by adjusting the COLA formula. There have been several proposals for tweaking the formula in different ways.


4. Limit the number of recipients, usually by means-testing.


5. Limit the amount of time recipients receive benefits, usually by raising the retirement age.


6. Charge it to the national credit card and let our grandkids worry about it. (Or charge it to the national credit card, then have a burst of inflation to reduce the real debt to a manageable level.)

Most of the solid proposals for eliminating the program are really cosmetic overlays for option 6. The ones that don't require a massive increase in debt involve an increase in taxes to support current recipients while requiring an increase in the same workers' contributions to their own retirement accounts.

McCain and Health Care

I hit the McCain web site to see if he had a plan for addressing the Medicare funding crisis. I found the following statement on his health care web page:

Promote competition throughout the health care system - between providers and among alternative treatments.

Depending on what he means by this, I either support it or think that it is a waste of resources. There are some alternative treatments (eg chiropracty for pinched back nerves) which have been shown to be beneficial. There are others that have not been shown to be worth the money. I'd hate to spend tax money (or my insurance premiums) paying for junk science like laetril treatments.

Here was his statement on Medicare:

Promises made to previous and current generations have placed the United States on an unsustainable budget pathway. Unchecked, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare obligations will grow as large as the entire federal budget is now in just a few decades. Without comprehensive bipartisan reform to America's entitlement programs, the nation will be unable to meet the challenges of providing vital medical and social security assistance to future generations.

Everything in the statement is factually true, but I don't see any meat in the form of a real proposal. Maybe that's unfair to expect of a presidential candidate, but I never said that I was fair.

Brief Comment on New Jersey Politics

In New Jersey, joining one of the two major parties would involve one of the following:

Option A: Join with a bunch of group-thinking, goose-stepping ideologues who care more about ideological purity than implementing policies that work.

Option B: Join with a bunch of vacillating dupes who vote for whichever politician has sold out most thoroughly to the corrupt, mob-ridden machine.

I think I'll stick with Option C, thank you very much. I've been around enough to see what is involved with getting inside enough to have influence.

Case in point: John Lynch

The last person elected in New Jersey as a "reform" Democrat who was going to clean up the party and the state: Jim McGreevy

Of course, the Republicans are soo much better: Chuck Haytaian

We certainly can't forget these guys: NJ Corruption Tour

The probe of into alleged bribe-taking in the awarding of public contracts resulted in the arrest Thursday of 11 public officials. Among them: two state lawmakers, two mayors, three city councilmen and several members of school board in Pleasantville, near Atlantic City, where the scandal had its roots.
...
Christie noted that 108 public officials in New Jersey have been convicted of federal corruption charges in the past five years. He marveled at the "stupidity and greed" of those who would continue to flout the law.

"The conclusion I draw is they don't care," he said. "They care more about themselves than the public they are elected to serve."
...

Here's another example of upstanding New Jersey politicians looking out for the little guy: NJ Officials Snared

And here's a scorecard from the Asbury Park Press.

The FBI's first sweep in its Operation Bid Rig probe led to the arrest of 11 officials in Monmouth County on Feb. 22, 2005. Their status:

Paul Zambrano, 50, former West Long Branch mayor and brother of Long Branch Councilman John Zambrano, who pleaded guilty Thursday to one charge of accepting a bribe: Pleaded guilty to accepting $15,000 in bribes.

Thomas Broderick, 61, former Monmouth County assistant highway supervisor: Pleaded guilty to money laundering that netted him $15,000 in profits.

Joseph "Joey Buses" McCurnin, 65, former Monmouth County transportation operations manager: Pleaded guilty to aiding in the extortion of a $1,000 bribe.

Joseph DeLisa, 50, former West Long Branch councilman: Awaiting trial on bribery and extortion charges.

Paul Coughlin, 42, former Hazlet mayor: Pleaded guilty to accepting a $3,000 bribe.

Patsy Townsend, 59, former Monmouth County deputy fire marshal and Neptune code enforcement officer: Pleaded guilty to extorting a $1,000 bribe.

John J. Hamilton Jr., 56, former Asbury Park councilman: Awaiting trial on charges of extortion, accepting a bribe in the form of a $5,000 driveway, attempted witness tampering and making a false statement.

Raymond O'Grady, 56, former Middletown Township committeeman: Convicted of extorting and accepting $8,000 in bribes.

Richard Iadanza, 51, former Neptune committeeman: Pleaded guilty to taking $3,000 in bribes.

John J. Merla, 44, Keyport mayor: Awaiting trial on eight counts of extortion and bribery charges.

An 11th defendant, Robert L. Hyer, a former Keyport councilman, died before trial. He was charged with extorting a $5,000 bribe.

Of those who have pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial, none have been sentenced yet. Several face up to 20 years in prison.

Anthony J. Palughi, 70, the retired Monmouth County superintendent of bridges, was the star witness for the U.S. attorney at O'Grady's trial. Palughi has pleaded guilty to taking part in a bribery scheme that implicated the late Harry J. Larrison Jr., the former Monmouth County freeholder director.

Larrison was charged last year with accepting bribes from two land developers, but he died a few weeks later.

Two major Monmouth County contractors also figured in subsequent "Bid Rid" charges. Stephen M. Appolonia, 53, the now-former president of International Trucks of Central Jersey, Howell, was charged with laundering $350,000; and James B. Ingram, 56, former owner of JBI Limousines Inc., Neptune, was charged with laundering $100,000.

Appolonia is awaiting trial; Ingram has pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentencing.

Thomas Greenwald, 52, a friend to Appolonia and a former Far Hills councilman who is charged with money laundering, is awaiting trial.

What Obama Really Means on Iraq

Looking into my crystal ball, I predict that if Obama gets the nomination, we will start to see his position become more nuanced, and that "16 months" or "18 months" or whatever it is this week will become a "goal" to extract a "large number" of soldiers, not the entire group.

I also predict that he will "discover" that a plan for withdrawal is not quite as easy as he makes it out to be. He will need extra time to "coordinate" the withdrawal with our Iraqi "partners."

Furthermore, any "delays" will be strictly due to something or other W did (Status of Forces? Budget? Lack of planning?), not anything forseeable by candidate Obama.

Definition of Corporatism

Corporatism:
"Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian: corporativismo) refers to a political or economic system in which power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, social, cultural, and professional groups."
Wikipedia entry

References of usage of the term in a modern context:
Populist America
Dissident Voice

I deliberately chose examples that refer to corporatist influences within the Democratic party. Corporatism (like populism) is distinct from liberalism or conservatism.

Liberals vs Socialists

At the risk of over-simplifying, I'm going to attempt to draw the distinction between "liberal" and "socialist."

Liberals believe in equality of opportunity.

Socialists believe in equality of outcome.

At times, these interests converge enough to allow for a coalition, but they are distinct.

Sorry to be so pedantic, but this is one of my pet peeves.

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist

Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community

The Liberal Menace and Media Bias

Not everybody who is not a conservative is a leftist. There are populists (eg Lou Dobbs). There are Libertarians. There is what I call "corporatism" for lack of an accepted word. (I would define "corporatism" as being in favor of government intervention that favors large corporations in general, as opposed to a more laissez-faire conservatism that wants to preserve a free market.) There is socialism (which is distinct from liberalism).

Calling everyone who disagrees with conservative orthodoxy a "leftist" is imprecise and not terribly helpful in defining what you're talking about.

There is a bias in media generally, but I think that it tends towards whatever oddball mix of populism and corporatism will satisfy the undereducated and clueless public while keeping the advertisers and corporate ownership happy.

Health Care Proposal Costs

One way of looking at health care costs is that the rest of us are currently charged a hidden tax to cover people who do not have coverage. (This gets paid through higher insurance rates and state/local taxes to cover the shortfall of hospital emergency rooms due to uncollectable bills.)

Any of the candidates' proposals should be weighed against the costs of continuing the current system.

Romney, for one, claimed that his plan paid for itself by reducing the costs associated with supporting the ERs.

I don't claim to be an expert in this area, but it seems to me that we aren't going to find the answer by mere sloganeering.

In particular, consider the relative costs of public vs private management in the Medicare program. It is not clear to me that private management of health care is more efficient or cheaper.

Are Third Party Votes Wasted?

Here are a few specific recent examples of how third-party votes have affected the policies of the major parties:

The large number of Green votes (especially in 2000) have influenced the Democrats to move to the left on environmental and trade issues.

Perot's reform party put steel in Clinton's spine when it came to fiscal conservatism, leading to significant deficit reduction.

The Republican party has been more impervious to pressure from the Libertarians for increased civil liberty and the Buchanan wing of the conservative movement for a more isolationist foreign policy. That rigidity, however, may undo the Republican party if they can't bend enough to help McCain win and run a successful administration.

Third-party votes tend to be single-issue votes. If there is a particular issue that is being ignored by the major parties, a third-party vote is one way of signaling your thinking on that issue.

The Democrats and Republicans would have us believe that there are only two flavors: conservative and liberal. Further, each of the parties represents one of these flavors. No other choices are possible. Lemminglike, we continue to follow them, so maybe they have a point.

No vote is wasted, as long as it is cast thoughtfully.

Obama a Demagogue?

I also disagree with the characterizations of Obama as a demagogue.

As has been pointed out, he tends to high-flown rhetoric and describes things that he can't possibly deliver. He's describing his vision for the future, a goal that he's working towards. His policy proposals (which he details on his web site) are geared towards moving towards his vision.

People should look at the proposals to decide whether they would, in fact, move the country towards the Obamian vision of the future. In my opinion, Obama genuinely believes that his proposals will move the country in that direction. A demagogue is someone who gives the vision speeches and then either fails to provide detailed proposals or provides detailed proposals that he or she knows are doomed to failure.

There is a long history of politicians promoting their vision of the future. Reagan is a prime example of this sort of leadership style. He promoted his vision, and he implemented policies that he believed would help move us towards his vision.

Clinton, in contrast, is much more of a nuts-and-bolts style of leader. She has a clear vision, but doesn't express it nearly as well as Obama does. She tends to get side-tracked by discussions of implementation details. She delights in the details of the proposals and could probably drown you in statistics and studies if given half a chance. She is also extremely tough and combative, which is not necessarily a bad thing in a President.

McCain is an interesting mix of the two styles. He has a clear vision and does a good job of expressing it, though not as smoothly as Obama. He is also more than happy to dig into the details to produce a piece of legislation that accomplishes his goals while also attracting enough opposition votes to actually pass. I'm not sure how well he will be able to lead the Republican party, however. We may be entering a period when the Republican establishment mimics the mistakes of the Democratic establishment with Carter. ("The problem with the Democrats is that they eat their young.")

I actually like all three as people. None of them particularly line up with my policy opinions, but I believe that they are all, at bottom, good people.

What is a Moderate Anyway?

I used to call myself a moderate. Then I came to the conclusion that I have very strongly held opinions, not opinions that are moderately held. The fact that they don't line up as "liberal" or "conservative" merely shows that the left/right continuum is not the only way to measure peoples' political beliefs.

For example, I have a strong belief in fiscal responsibility. I do not believe that we should pass our bills on to our children. Each generation should pay its own way. I don't believe that this belief is well-represented by either the conservatives or the liberals in the current environment.

A also believe that we should fight corruption wherever possible. Again, I don't see this as a conservative or a liberal position. I can come up with examples of members of both parties who I believe to be selling their positions and votes to the highest bidder.

I believe that we should have a moral foreign policy. I don't see this as a liberal or a conservative issue either; I see aspects of both approaches that contribute to a moral foreign policy.

Third Party Voters

Different people value different issues differently. If an individual voter feels more strongly about a particular issue, to the point where other differences are less important, they should find someone who agrees with their point of view.

People who have lived in other countries frequently come back with an appreciation for how similar the Dem and Rep parties are (compared with the differences between the major parties in other countries). I think that our political discourse could stand to be broadened rather than relying on brainwashing people to be loyal members of one of the brand name parties.

More Republican Religious Bigotry

There are credible reports that delegates for McCain and Paul were instructed to switch their support to Huckabee in order to deny Romney a victory.

There are some things about Romney as a candidate that I don't like. Still, I have to wonder if a big part of the anti-Romney sentiment isn't thinly veiled religious bigotry.

I was watching both Bay and Pat Buchanan earlier, and both of them alluded to this issue. I think that they feel that the religious right abandoned them in 1992. I have to wonder if they feel that it was because they are Catholic.

The Rhetoric of Original Intent

I've about had it with the typical Republican claptrap about how their guys are the ones "defending" the "original intent" of the Constitution.

The Constitution as written specifies that electoral votes are to be determined by the states, not by the Supreme Court. Oops. Maybe the whole "original intent" thing is just cover for voting the way they wanted to vote all along.

Rhetoric is not the same as reality.

Another example? Do you think the framers intended a standing peacetime army or navy? A few of them might have (especially Hamilton, whose draft Constitution is a very interesting document). It seems clear to me that the majority of the signers of the Constitution did not intend to have a large standing peacetime army or navy.

McCain a Fake Conservative?

I've been hearing stuff like this a lot, but it just strikes me as bizarre. Only a very few Republicans even qualify as even center right, let alone liberal. Ahnold and the Republican Senators from New England are the only ones who come to mind. I don't see that McCain lines up with any of them.

McCain is a conservative. If you disagree with him on immigration policy and campaign finance reform--both fairly fringe issues--then he must be a liberal?

I'll give you that he bolts from the Republican party orthodoxy from time to time. To my mind that makes him an independent thinker, not a liberal. Honestly, the Republicans could use someone who is willing to challenge authority. The old coalition will fracture without some new thinking.

Military Experience and National Security Expertise

People sometimes claim or imply that only people with military experience are really qualified to have an opinion on national security matters. There are other perspectives that I can think of which would be equally valid and important in such a discussion. For example, someone who has served in the Peace Corps or Doctors Without Borders would have a similarly valuable perspective. Even those of us who have lived through revolutions as civilians have a valuable perspective on the subject.

Regardless of the role that an individual may have played, it is only as valuable to the conversation as the level of thought and reflection that the individual has brought to bear on their experience.

I was always amazed by the general cluelessness of Americans living overseas. They saw the same things I did and lived through similar experiences, but they might never have left Kansas or wherever for all of the impact it had in their lives. They cluster in their little English-speaking enclaves and fly in Hamburger Helper from the US.

Civil wars, in particular, are difficult beasts. Unfortunately, many soldiers only consider how to fight them, not necessarily how to win them. There are some exceptions--Petraeus is a notable exception. Based on what I've read of his writings, he seems to be able to get past the strictly military aspects of the situation and see how to make the overall situation better. Our best current hope in Iraq is that the political leadership will follow his lead. A sense of urgency from the Secretary of State would help too.

People who have served in NGOs, the Peace Corps, or even some religious groups in war areas have seen a different side of the conflict than a typical soldier would see. Both perspectives need to be considered, because you need to both push apart the combatants and also deal with the tensions underlying the conflict.

Obama and Hope

I don't see anything wrong with giving people hope. If we don't believe we "can," there's not a lot to get out of bed for in the morning. Inspirational messages do have their place--as long as they aren't confused with substantive proposals. Give Obama credit here, he does actually have substantive proposals on his web site. Even if you disagree with his proposals, I think you have to admit that Obama is a reasonably smart person who has put his proposals out into the marketplace of ideas.

I disagree with the idea that he is trying to sneak his agenda into the White House using inspirational speeches. I don't think it is reasonable to expect candidates to use their stump speeches as anything other than a cheerleading session. Substantive proposals belong in writing in a publicly accessible place. Their absence in a speech is probably more an indication of the brain-dead state of the American electorate than an indication of the quality of the mind of the politician.

I don't think that Obama can reasonably be called a demagogue. I think that would only be appropriate if he were either trying to sneak in an agenda under the radar, or if he intended to implement a different agenda than is on his web site. I don't believe that either of these is the case. If he were trying to sneak in an agenda, his web site would be an awfully strange place to expound upon it. And I think he believes that his proposals would work.

(All of this is written by someone who doesn't actually plan on voting for him on Tuesday, and who may very well be voting for a 3rd-party candidate in November.)

His lack of experience in military and foreign policy issues is a totally different (and legitimate) issue to explore.