Healthcare, Republicans, Obama and Beyond

Sitting here thinking that after all the huffing and rumbling and backtracking and embracing is done, we won't get anything really set in stone next week.

We will wait till everyone in Congress goes home to hang out. We will wait while they test the sentiments in the home district. We will wait while they eat hot dogs on Labor day.

They will come back. There will be a big bruising fight over whether or not the health plan should include funding for abortion. That will all but kill any sort of single payer option (or rekill it), and certainly doom any package that includes a government-run option.

Heads will rub together. Democrats will get scared of failure. Some sort of co-op or pooled buying system will emerge, along with one or two of Obama's healthcare pillars. Most Republicans will denounce it. It will pass.

For the next year Republicans will continue to decry the health plan, even as, under their feet, the economy begins to reemerge from coma.

Repulicans will struggle, and lose influence. Unless they get someone armed with truth and creativity. That person is out there somewhere. (It's not Sarah).

Senator Kay and Governor Rick of Texas Getting Fungy with Money

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas will be running against Governor Perry for his job. She is taking the line that he should have accepted Federal stimulus money to help with unemployment, which is rising. Perry takes the line that he is standing up to the government, always a good thing among a certain sector of the Republican base that lacks discernment about when you should stand up, and when you should be practical, shut up, and sit down.

What is funny, the oddity, is the ridiculousness of both their positions, though Kay comes out a bit more sensible by a centimeter of rationality.

Senator Hutchison initially rejected the stimulus package, and one assumes for reasons that can be reduced down to 1) it won't work and 2) it adds to the deficit and 3) it would likely be filled with a huge amount of wasteful spending.  Those reasons are all somewhat valid, but in the face of the biggest economic setback since the depression, one should come with alternatives if you are taking that line. Republicans, generally, have not been overly articulate in providing those alternatives.The line has often been cut taxes and rough it out.

We are left with Kay now criticizing the current governor for money she voted against. In effect, had she gotten her way on the stimulus package, she would have no ammunition to drop on Perry's head. Her rationale is that since the unnecessary evil (stimulus) was done, Texas might as well not be overly dignified in losing its share.

Texas thus becomes the guy at the office party who thinks office birthday parties are stupid and a waste of time and money, and who has contributed nothing, but makes sure he gets a slice of the cake. You know, so it won't go to waste; one has to be sociable and all:

Hutchison said she voted against "every dollar" of stimulus spending but contends that, once the recovery expenditure was approved by Congress, Texas was entitled to get "its share of those dollars." She said she avoided raising the issue while the Legislature was meeting this year to avoid injecting politics into the session.

The surge in unemployment claims over the past year has drained the state’s unemployment trust fund, forcing the Texas Workforce Commission to seek a federal loan of at least $643 million to continue paying benefits. Texas employers also face an increase in the taxes they pay to support the fund, beginning in January.

(Star Telegram)

Meanwhile Perry's position lacks a certain sense as well. Or shall we call it, a highly nuanced way of approaching a problem. He rejected the money for unemployment because it had strings attached that, in theory, might force Texas to be more generous with their unemployment funds in the future. Instead, and with Texas short of funds, they will seek a loan for the money to cover unemployment benefits.

Perry goes on to say that that's what the Feds are there for, and it worked for them in 2003. Thus, he would rather take on a loan, debt, to provide seven weeks or so of benefits, instead of taking the Federal free money, simply because he does not want to have to expand the benefits of a program down the road that is, as of today, not quite funded.

The stimulus money, he said, would have provided less than seven weeks of benefits and would have slapped Texas employers with long-term taxes by requiring the state to expand its benefits program. But Hutchison said she obtained a Labor Department ruling saying Texas could have reversed the added unemployment benefits without penalty.

Everyone wants the money. Everyone needs the money. But everyone wants to pretend, ideologically, that they don't. Fungibility games.

Mind you, it's not like the strings attached to the package are exceptionally evil or onerous. They ought to be part of the general unemployment package to begin with. The requirements, for Texas, include providing unemployment benefits to part-time workers and calculating benefits based on the four most recent quarters instead of the past 18 months.

One suspects that both politicians should be praying that the economy does not improve, or that if it does, people's memories are incredibly short.

It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time

I am reading New York Observer restaurant critic Moira Hodgon's memoir It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time. When homebound on vacation, lacking money, there is little you can do but eat, read, watch television, or spend your hours from link to link on the internet. I could exercise, like I did yesterday for 20 minutes in the Phoenix heat, but that's almost like spending the vacation pulling my own teeth . Or cleaning.

The story she has to tell is slight; an attractive woman bouncing from locale to locale, and the food along the way. Everything is a bit carefree and unencumbered by anything heavy going on in the world.

Today there was a bump in her road. Midway through the book, she ends up having to lose an eye, and what caught my attention was not so much her plight, but how England's health system served her.

"I went to one doctor after another, first on the National Health and then, at great expense, on Harley Street, where the names of thedoctors were written in Arabic and the waiting roomswere filled with women shrouded in black, accompanied by their male minders. Dr. Casey was stumped. He sent me to Dr. Green, a few expensive doors down."

(p.217)

We eventually discover she has a tumor, and must get the eye removed. Then, on page 226:

"At last it was time to get a false eye to replace the clear plastic retainer I wore in my eye socket. This service, like everything else to do with my illness, was provided for free by the National Health."

That was then, another time and place and country. But it is a glimpse, probably, of what Obama and those hoping for healthcare reform wish to see here. In other words, more options, but with a base level of service that is affordable, if not "free." Most of us are not naive enough to believe anything is free; the money always comes from somewhere.

However, when it comes to healthcare delivery, it does make sense to get everyone involved, and everyone paying something, or taking some responsibility, in order to approximate a version of "free" that serves the largest number of people, while still allowing the individual to spend extra or in a fashion they see fit on additional services.

As to the book itself, it's interesting, with no overwhelming strengths, other than being a page turner filled with tidbits of this and that (recipes, locales, the ease of life for an attractive woman with well connected parents). I have the looming suspision there will no moral truth or moment of ephiphany or purpose by book's end, leaving me with that cotton candy feeling in my brain.

Washington Post Exaggerates Theme of TARP Spending Report

The Washington Post titles a report on T.A.R.P. fund spending , "Bailout Overseer Says Banks Misused TARP Funds."

The truth of what the article actually says defies the title, floating up there above reality somewhere between mild hyperbole and boldfaced attention whoring. Nowhere in the article does anyone make the claim that funds were misused, but instead, that accounting for the money needs to be more precise.

Forbes covers the same news with a bit more honesty, and detail:

"According to the study, 83% of those surveyed used TARP infusions for lending purposes, mostly for residential and commercial mortgages. In addition, 43% used it to bolster their capital cushions; 31% spent TARP money on investments; 14% used it to pay down debt and 4% used it to acquire other banks."

(Forbes)

Forbes goes on to mention that the money used to acquire banks was under FDIC direction, and that much of the money spent on investments involved activity with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, activity that could "bolster the lending and borrowing" of other banks.

In fact, what we come away with is that nobody has exact figures for what has been spent at individual banks,  and that we should, but also, that much of that activity arguably works toward the goal of making the banks stronger.

The whole idea that the banks should be using the funds for new loans defies rationality when their current roster of assets and loans are still declining in value. Forbes reminds that the TARP facility was established in order to strengthen the banks, not, specifically, to force them to expand lending.

Too many people (media, politicians, casual observers) are pressing to see everything happen at once, and some goals work at cross purposes. A bank cannot right itself, unless it can have profits and increase its capital structure. When Goldman or Bank of America posts gains, in whatever manner, that is actually good and means things are working and they are getting stronger. At some patient point in the future, they will be ready to perform a more core lending function.

Expecting huge increases in lending now should not be an expectation.

Republicans See Gyro Meat in Obama's Healthcare Plan

Some of my loves--and we are talking food here--are Jamaican beef patties, Chinese food, pizza, and gyros. In fact growing up in my part of Queens, we called them "gyros" as in gyroscope. Even today, and knowing that the "g" should be dropped and the y should screech like an "eee", I still fill uncomfortable getting so phonetically correct. It's a JIRO in my head, and ever more shall be.

The New York Times has a story today about the evolution of the mass production of that gyro mystery meat, and it's an entertaining read, thy type of reading that takes your mind off the pressures of the day, the worries of the mind, the reality of deeper things. You turn on some Michael Buble, whom a woman on my job loves, or my Mark Knopfler, and you sit back and read about people with a dream. The dream being to supply you and your hungry tummy with a cheap and satisfying meal of beef and lamb trimmings (and added seasonings, bread crumbs).

But no, don't tell me the details, lest I stand there in the Asian owned burger joint near me, staring too intently at the vertically resting meat, thinking thoughts my belly doesn't want to process. Such is life, that reality intercedes in the middle of dream and desire.

David Segal's gyro piece gives us this:

Feeling somewhat burned but eager to move on, the couple eventually opened that restaurant with the dolphins, and two others, none of which sold gyros.

The Garlics moved to Orlando, Fla., in the early 1980s, where John sold subdivisions for a developer. He did well, but when he became sick, the family’s savings were drained to pay for treatments not covered by insurance. After her husband died, Ms. Garlic waited tables to support her children.

As gyros went nationwide and earned millions for a handful of entrepreneurs, the sight of rotisseries broke Ms. Garlic’s heart a little. “That was our idea,” she would think. She’s rarely discussed her and her husband’s role in Greek-American food history, but only because the subject rarely comes up. When it does, people think she’s kidding.

(N.Y.Times)

Every time you hear someone who is not in favor of any kind of healthcare reform, or who resorts to straw arguments about socialism, ask them how they would resolve the issue of people being financially drained down to zero due to health concerns.

Today the U.S. Senate began the process of moving forward, with some on board, and others growing more critical, but not necessarily constructively critical.

President Barack Obama achieved a milestone Wednesday when a Senate committee approved a plan to revamp the U.S. health care system. The Senate panel's action, which attracted no Republican votes, came as the president's campaign organization rolled out television ads to build support for his top domestic priority.

Obama met with Republicans at the White House in search of an elusive bipartisan compromise on his call to expand coverage to the nearly 50 million uninsured Americans as well as restrain spending increases in health care.

But the 13-10 party-line vote in the Senate health committee signaled a deepening rift in Congress. While Democrats respond to Obama's call for action with renewed determination, Republicans are using harsher words to voice their misgivings.

(A.P.)

The question is not so much as whether Obama or Democrats are mostly right. I have my doubts too. But the other side in the debate refuses to budge on significant change, cloaking their concerns in rhetorical fantasies based more in fear than in substance. They cannot conceive of how an economy filled with workers unburdened by health concerns might be significantly more productive.

It's amazing how reality pushes in, when all you want is a nice bite of gyro, maybe a side of fries, and some coke.

Iran Targets Dissenters, Links Them to the United States

Thankfully John McCain is not president. In observing the internal collision in Iran between "reformists" and hardliners, McCain argued that President Obama was not vocal enough in showing his support for those Iranians out in the streets protesting a possibly corrupted electoral process.

Obama has taken a lesson from past overly verbose American policy statements, deciding to low key it, albeit succumbing to some pressure as time has passed. But his intent was about maintaining the purity of those in Iran who were most inclined to embrace the United States should they ever get into power. He knew that the minute we started making strong statements in support of the reformers and dissenters and their candidate Mousavi, that it would empower the other side. It would allow Ahmadinejad, the disputed winner of the election, and his powerful backers, to paint the opposition as tools of America.

McCain is ever blind to these types of nuances, and now we have the result of our slightly more vocal criticism of the regime:

"Hossein Shariatmadari, editor-in-chief of the influential Kayhan newspaper, said Mousavi had committed "terrible crimes", including "murdering innocent people, holding riots, co-operating with foreigners and acting as America's fifth column", in pursuing his claims that last month's re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was rigged.

The accusations - in a newspaper editorial - were the most ferocious yet from regime insiders and may serve notice that preparations are under way to arrest Mousavi and his main allies. Several hundred known reformists and pro-Mousavi supporters have already been detained since the election. The editorial also singled out the reformist former president, Mohammad Khatami, who last week compared Ahmadinejad's re-election to a coup."

(UK Guardian)

This artificial tethering of Iranian protest to American and western manipulation is what Obama hoped to avoid. So long as he kept his language neutral while at the same time encouraging respectful treatment of protesters, we were good. Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei were not likely to let the "evil America" card go un-played, and yet, it would be much harder for that card to have any domestic actionability to the extent we kept closed mouthed.

Sometimes we have to recognize the limits of verbalization and keep silent. Silence can be a powerful weapon. That is not something Senator McCain would fully comprehend.

Sarah Palin Resigns for No Real Reason...Hmmm

The speculation is on about why Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has decided to resign midterm. The leading theory seems to be that she wants to prepare for a run at the presidency in 2012. While that theory fits nicely as the "most normal explanation", we can pretty much discard it. Others have suggested that you cannot quit one job, and then turn around and reach for a bigger, better job, so that she is effectively dead as a presidential possibility (lack of intellect aside, which, if taken into account, makes for double death).

The fact that she is "quitting" her job, and just two years or so into the job and one in which she needs in order to bolster her political weight, and releasing the news on a pre-holiday Friday, let's you know that some major something (scandal ?) is on its way. Or was on its way.

This was not a selfless act of Palin seeking to step away and explore other ways to make change happen, but rather, a selfish attempt to get in front of something, or away from something (the complexity of governing in difficult economic times).  Or, she is simply clearing the path to the yellow brick road of speaking fees and unfocused fame.

We speculate. We wait. The most fascinating truth surely it will come, but likely buried in a bed of Palinesque hubris and verbal figmentation.