On May 8, 2012, a Tea Party candidate defeated U.S. Senator Richard Lugar in the Indiana Republican primary. Although Lugar was a corporatist stooge in the true sense of the word, at least he was the corporatist stooge that we knew. Lugar was an entrenched Washington insider which made predicable. In his place, Indiana’s former state treasurer and Tea Party adherent, Richard Mourdock, is now the Republican candidate for a seat in the U.S. Senate. If he wins and the GOP takes control of the Senate, the road to extremism will be open and unobstructed.
This is the real fruit of the so-called “Reagan Revolution.”
Because of the GOP’s catastrophic decline in the 1960’s and 1970’s, Ronald Reagan was forced to mobilize the evangelical and religious right to win the presidency in 1980. In doing so, he inadvertently transformed American politics into a theocratic process.
Over the course of the 1980’s (with the emergence of the neoconservative movement), religion and corporatism defined contemporary American political values. These values finally metastasized into the Tea Party movement.
Fiscal, foreign, and social policy issues are now hopelessly intertwined with evangelical Christian values. Consequently, many Americans are confused and adhere to conservative, corporate policy because it closely aligns with their neo-Christian beliefs (in which apathy replaces compassion and intolerance and righteous indignation are the new beatitudes).
How will this Reagan-inspired movement continue to evolve? Sadly, religious-corporate fervor can only lead to a fascist end. Noam Chomsky puts it best, “I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to exist, then it would choose the American system.”a Tea Party candidate
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Ryan's Sick Plan
On May 3, 2012, the Huffington Post reported the following story:
“The co-creator of the concept that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is relying upon to reform Medicare no longer thinks it will work [Henry] Aaron and former Urban Institute president Robert Reischauer came up with the idea of “premium support” in 1995, after the failure of then-First Lady Hillary Clinton's bid to reform the health care system… …The basic idea is simple: let people pick their health insurers in the private market, subsidize the premiums, and competition will drive down costs. That's the theory behind Ryan's plan.”
I was an attorney for the state agency that provides regulatory oversight of California's health insurance plans. Though, I have little legal experience with the Medicare system, I share Henry Aaron's concerns about deregulation of the commercial heath care insurance industry generally, and the strain that it places on health plan enrollees. In my opinion, health insurance plans are an inefficient and costly way of delivering health care services. For example, as much as 34 cents of every premium dollar goes to plan administrative costs. The notion of excluding potential enrollees due to pre-existing conditions is corporate malfeasance at its worst.
Ultimately, it's about policy (i.e., fiscal) choices. To that end, the GOP plunged the country into two unnecessary wars costing trillions of dollars and then enacted trillion dollar tax breaks for the wealthy. And now, under Paul Ryan, the GOP proposes draconian, irresponsible cuts to Medicare and other social programs with even more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. To his shame, President Obama has done little to implement meaningful health care policy (I do not consider the Affordable Care Act a step in the right direction). A single payer system is the only viable alternative.
Conservatives screech words such as "freedom" and "choice" and in doing so, place health care in the context of free market principals. Adequate health care is not about the free market. Adequate, accessible and affordable health care is a right.
“The co-creator of the concept that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is relying upon to reform Medicare no longer thinks it will work [Henry] Aaron and former Urban Institute president Robert Reischauer came up with the idea of “premium support” in 1995, after the failure of then-First Lady Hillary Clinton's bid to reform the health care system… …The basic idea is simple: let people pick their health insurers in the private market, subsidize the premiums, and competition will drive down costs. That's the theory behind Ryan's plan.”
I was an attorney for the state agency that provides regulatory oversight of California's health insurance plans. Though, I have little legal experience with the Medicare system, I share Henry Aaron's concerns about deregulation of the commercial heath care insurance industry generally, and the strain that it places on health plan enrollees. In my opinion, health insurance plans are an inefficient and costly way of delivering health care services. For example, as much as 34 cents of every premium dollar goes to plan administrative costs. The notion of excluding potential enrollees due to pre-existing conditions is corporate malfeasance at its worst.
Ultimately, it's about policy (i.e., fiscal) choices. To that end, the GOP plunged the country into two unnecessary wars costing trillions of dollars and then enacted trillion dollar tax breaks for the wealthy. And now, under Paul Ryan, the GOP proposes draconian, irresponsible cuts to Medicare and other social programs with even more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. To his shame, President Obama has done little to implement meaningful health care policy (I do not consider the Affordable Care Act a step in the right direction). A single payer system is the only viable alternative.
Conservatives screech words such as "freedom" and "choice" and in doing so, place health care in the context of free market principals. Adequate health care is not about the free market. Adequate, accessible and affordable health care is a right.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
The True Measure of the Man
Recently, it was reported that Mitt Romney bullied a prep school classmate. As the story goes, the classmate was gay and Romney and his friends assaulted him cutting off his hair. Romney wielded the scissors. When asked by reporters about the assault, Romney described it as "high school hijinks" and proceeded to give a patently half-hearted apology. An earlier story also described how Romney strapped the family dog (who was presumably in a crate of some sort) to the roof of the family car during a trip to Canada. Apparently, the dog was ill ("with the runs," as Romney describes it) and Romney did not want the dog in the car.
Clearly, Romney is a bully with no common sense - which is alarming enough given that he is the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. But what is even more troubling is his appalling ethical deficit. Ethical public policy is premised on compassion, empathy and a desire not harm the weakest and most vulnerable of society. As Francis of Assisi put it, “If you have men who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter of compassion and joy and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow man.”
How can one expect Romney to lead this country ethically and justly if he would brutally assault a gay classmate and strap a helpless, sick animal to the roof of his car on a cold, windy trip to Canada?
Clearly, Romney is a bully with no common sense - which is alarming enough given that he is the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. But what is even more troubling is his appalling ethical deficit. Ethical public policy is premised on compassion, empathy and a desire not harm the weakest and most vulnerable of society. As Francis of Assisi put it, “If you have men who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter of compassion and joy and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow man.”
How can one expect Romney to lead this country ethically and justly if he would brutally assault a gay classmate and strap a helpless, sick animal to the roof of his car on a cold, windy trip to Canada?
The State as Executioner
Californians will soon have an opportunity to vote whether to repeal the death penalty. Ironically, the author of initiative seeks to repeal the death penalty on purely fiscal grounds. Apparently, the cost of inmate appeals and the subsequent delays in executions cost California too much money.
As a threshold matter, it seems to me that administration of the death penalty is only a small part of the California penal system. While banning the death penalty would promote judicial economy and reduce expenditures, other measures can be taken to greatly reduce the cost of California's prison system (such as eliminating or reducing incarceration for minor drug offenses).
But the real issue here is the inequality of the death penalty. An African American is four times more likely to receive the death penalty than his white counterpart. The disparity is even greater between rich and poor defendants. Further, a number of death row inmates are released due to new DNA evidence, prosecutorial misconduct and perjured testimony. How can we then tolerate the death of a single innocent person in favor of maintaining an inherently flawed punishment?
And no less importantly, what are we asking of our correctional officers, administrators, and prison doctors to participate in the death of another person? Just because an execution is medicalized and administratively governed doesn't make it right. We only need to look at Nazi Germany for the ultimate example of medicalized homicide and its administration.
The sophistication of a polity can best be measured by how it treats its worst elements. A life term in prison is not a pleasant thing. And while it may not satisfy plebeian cries for blood, at least it preserves our humanity.
As a threshold matter, it seems to me that administration of the death penalty is only a small part of the California penal system. While banning the death penalty would promote judicial economy and reduce expenditures, other measures can be taken to greatly reduce the cost of California's prison system (such as eliminating or reducing incarceration for minor drug offenses).
But the real issue here is the inequality of the death penalty. An African American is four times more likely to receive the death penalty than his white counterpart. The disparity is even greater between rich and poor defendants. Further, a number of death row inmates are released due to new DNA evidence, prosecutorial misconduct and perjured testimony. How can we then tolerate the death of a single innocent person in favor of maintaining an inherently flawed punishment?
What is left is the satisfaction of perceived justice (which is too often defined by citizens entrenched in Old Testament values). If the death penalty is viewed critically, it becomes clear that the State should not be in the business of rote vengeance. State sponsored homicide simply does not promote any legitimate policy end. Many studies have shown that the death penalty does not does not act as a deterrent. The law must be above human emotion and irrationality.
The sophistication of a polity can best be measured by how it treats its worst elements. A life term in prison is not a pleasant thing. And while it may not satisfy plebeian cries for blood, at least it preserves our humanity.
Friday, May 11, 2012
...a chimp with a handgun
I have been on a rant since 1980. That was the year Ronald Reagan took office and changed American politics forever. I was a 15-year-old high school freshman and I remember exclaiming in class, "This CANNOT be good!" I immediately became interested in politics and social issues. I've been at odds with convention ever since.
As it turns out, Reagan paid the devil's price for his success and the evangelical right took hold of American political discourse. During his presidency, corporatism was elevated above the interest of working-class Americans and neoconservatism came to dominate American foreign policy.
As it turns out, Reagan paid the devil's price for his success and the evangelical right took hold of American political discourse. During his presidency, corporatism was elevated above the interest of working-class Americans and neoconservatism came to dominate American foreign policy.
Over the past 30 years, Americans, fed a sticky-sweet pablum of of corporate, conservative and religious values, forgot how to think. Anti-intellectualism is now the norm. Corporate sponsors dominate the news media and independent, critical analysis is either ignored or outright suppressed.
As a result, most Americans will now vote against their interests and elect conservative candidates - and believe that they did the right thing. Meanwhile, we're mired knee deep in a Constitutional crisis, the environment is at risk of being destroyed, income inequality is at feudal levels and women's rights are being rolled back to the Victorian era.
As a result, most Americans will now vote against their interests and elect conservative candidates - and believe that they did the right thing. Meanwhile, we're mired knee deep in a Constitutional crisis, the environment is at risk of being destroyed, income inequality is at feudal levels and women's rights are being rolled back to the Victorian era.
Hence, the raison d'etre for this blog. I hope to incite reason.
Although, this blog is one among many thousands, I intend this to be a forum for all who wish (or must) post their arguments. Liberal, conservative, socialist, dadaist - it doesn't matter. Write, argue, think, convince, reject. These are the only rules.
And, now, time for that beer...!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)