Romney's Missed Opportunity

We took the time to read Mitt Romney’s foreign policy speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars.  We had hoped that the former governor would use the opportunity to lay out his vision on America’s future on the world stage.  Unfortunately all we got was a lot of generalities and jingoistic bluster.

Mitt Romney had the opportunity to define his foreign policy beliefs and differentiate himself from an administration that he believes has weakened the nation and jeopardized its national security.  He had an opportunity to legitimize his candidacy by acknowledging the accomplishments of the current administration; like the elimination of bin Laden and the removal of Gadhaffi.  He failed on all counts.

Romney chose to follow the same path that he has followed throughout the campaign…the path of obfuscation and hypocrisy.  Romney doesn’t deal in specifics.  He offers vague generalities, partisan talking points and platitudes.  He won’t talk about the past...and he won’t tell us specifically what he plans for the future.  His message is simple:  “The president has failed…vote for me.”

That just isn’t enough.     

This & That!

SYRIA – The Neo-cons have been quite vocal in criticizing what they believe is a lack of leadership by the Obama administration in stopping the violence in Syria.  Led by Senator John McCain, they have lampooned the president for “doing nothing” and have called upon him to “exert America’s influence in the region” and “demonstrate America’s unparalleled leadership in world affairs.”  That’s Neo-con for “blow stuff up.”

We’ll, it turns out that the president has been doing something.  We have known that the administration through Secretary of State Clinton has worked tirelessly on building an international coalition to pressure Assad to stop the violence and relinquish power.  We now know that the administration, through CIA operatives on the ground, has been working to: identify and organize the rebel leadership, uncover Assad’s alleged stock piles of chemical weapons and stop the shipment of arms flowing from to Assad from Iran.

This is a president whose record shows that he is anything but timid when it comes to protecting America’s interests.  From organizing an international coalition to oust Gadhaffi, to the raid that killed bin laden to the drone strikes which have decimated al Qaeda’s leadership, this president has worked quietly and effectively behind the scenes to do the country’s business.  The president recognizes that America’s influence in the region is not now nor will it ever be what it once was.  Yet he has been effective in protecting the country from attack and crippling our enemies without putting boots on the ground. 

The President is every bit as strong on America’s defense as the most “Neo” of the Neo-cons.  Fortunately for us he spends his time getting the job done rather than making hawkish political speeches.

MITT ROMNEY - will travel abroad in the next few days.  He will visit Israel, Poland and England where he will attend the Olympics.  During this trip he is expected to deliver two speeches in which he will outline his views on foreign policy. 

So far Romney has limited his comments on foreign policy to criticizing the president’s approach without providing any specific alternatives. What little that he has shared about this world view mirrors the Bush/Chaney policies that are loathed by all but the far, far right of the Republican Party.

Romney is entering the region at one of the most combustible times in history.  The financial crisis in Europe, the events of the Arab Spring, a new power structure in Egypt, civil war in Syria, Iran’s nuclear ambitions and our uneasy alliance with Pakistan all make for a tinderbox waiting to explode.  Romney’s effort to express his world views could provide the match.

Romney needs to be careful here.  We don’t need any more of his gaffs.

PENN STATE – The NCAA has released their much anticipated sanctions against Penn State University for its part in the Sandusky child abuse incident.  A $60 million dollar fine, the loss of 20 scholarships per year for four years, no bowl participation for four years, implementation of a host of internal compliance regulations, forfeiture of all wins from 1998-2010 and five years probation, will effectively kill the football program for the next decade.  So the question is…did the NCAA get it right?  Are the sanctions too harsh…too lenient?  It’s difficult to say.  After all what price can one place on the abuse of even one child not to mention the abuse numerous children over the span of a decade?

The NCAA has sent a message that is sure to reverberate in universities throughout the country: the university presidents and chancellors are in charge…the football gods best take heed.           

                

Repealing "Obamacare" Not Enough

The president’s Affordable Health Care Act continues to be one of the most contentious pieces of legislation ever passed into law.   Mitt Romney has vowed to make repealing the law one of his top priorities as president.  You won’t find a Republican congressional candidate that doesn’t have “Repeal Obamacare” near the top of his “To Do” list. 

The chief complaint among conservatives centers on the section of the law which requires that all Americans purchase health care insurance or face a fine.  They consider this aspect of the law to be an attack on capitalism: “an attempt to remake our health care system into a European socialist system…much like the French.” Conservatives were so adamant that the “mandate” was unconstitutional they took their case all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court disagreed, and in a 5-4 decision found that the law was indeed constitutional.  The “mandate” goes into effect in 2014.   Undaunted, conservatives have vowed to repeal the law and “return the country to the best health care system in the world.”

Contrary to conservative beliefs; the requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance is not an attempt to turn health care into a socialist distribution system.  In fact the purpose is to correct the biggest drain on our health care resources and one of the primary factors in the skyrocketing costs of our health care system. 

Today there are 50 million Americans uninsured. 30 million  of them can afford to purchase health care insurance but choose not to; preferring to obtain the free health care provided by local hospital emergency rooms.  The cost of this treatment is absorbed by the hospitals and then passed along to the rest of us in increased charges.  These increased charges are then reflected in skyrocketing health insurance premiums.  The purpose of the mandate is to force people who can afford insurance to buy it and to provide assistance to those who cannot.

If you don’t agree with anything else in this piece we hope that you will buy into this: 

In our current free market system it is impossible to reduce health care costs and premiums if you continue to allow 30,000,000 individuals to access health care for free.  Somebody has to pay for their treatment.  Emergency room services are the most expensive in our current health care system.  When Individuals use the emergency room for free treatment for minor aches, pains and injuries it’s like undergoing brain surgery to cure a headache. The inflated cost of this treatment is passed onto paying customers.

Still skeptical?  Wondering how much of an affect providing free treatment for the uninsured could have on the cost of health care?  Consider this recent story printed in the Cincinnati Enquirer:

“Ninety-eight times in two years, the 41-year old man visited the emergency room at University Hospital.  Diagnosed with asthma, diabetes and hypertension, he didn’t have a primary care doctor and racked up charges of $898,581 at the ER…During those same two years, a 38-year old women with sickle cell disease visited 72 times.  Her total charges: $1.3 million.”

“These are “superusers,” a tiny sliver of patients that showcases the inefficiencies of the $2.6 trillion American health care system…They are a symptom of the problem…the top 1% of high-cost users swallowed nearly 20% of all that spending according to the National Institute for Health Care Management.”

Keep in mind that these are just two examples taken from one hospital in a small Midwestern town.  Now consider the exponential affects on a national basis.  The numbers are staggering.

If Republicans don’t like “Obamacare” they are well within their rights to do everything they can to repeal it.  But they have to offer an alternative.  Simply “returning the country to the best health care system in the world” isn’t enough.

                      

    

Violence In America

As you might expect the Aurora, Colorado shooting has sparked a heated debate over our constitutional right to carry firearms.  Gun advocates strongly believe that having more guns in the hands of the populace makes the nation safer.  The anti-gun crowd is just as adamant that the more guns there are on the streets the more opportunities there are for tragedies to occur.  This debate at a time of tragedy is to be expected as national tragedies are often the only time that important issues like this are discussed.

So let’s have the debate, and let’s start with the most common rationale for less restrictive gun laws being expressed in the wake of the Aurora shooting;  that had there been armed patrons in that theater they would have shot James E. Holmes before he could hurt so many innocent people.

The people who believe this see themselves as a Jason Bourne figure, who in the midst of all the smoke, noise and panic rises from his seat…draws his weapon…takes the appropriate two handed shooting stance…and calmly fires one lethal shot which strikes James E. Holmes right between the eyes…all while his significant other swoons in admiration from the adjoining seat.

There is a different scenario.  There is a darkened theater lighted only by the light flickering from the movie screen.  Suddenly a man appears.  He is dressed in Kevlar and brandishing a number of weapons.  He sets off some type of gas canister and begins firing indiscriminately into the crowd. The room fills with suffocating smoke, and the noise is so loud you can’t hear yourself think.  Panic ensues and people are running in every direction trying to get away from the shooter. It is utter chaos.  Then 2, 3, 4…10…20 armed people sitting in different areas of the theater, draw their weapons and begin firing through the smoke toward where they believe the shooter to be.  Some have soiled themselves out of fear; and yet they keep firing.  Others have squeezed their eyes shut to block out the horror; yet they indiscriminately fire round after round after round.  This isn’t the way they thought it would be.  Shooting at paper targets and empty beer bottles is far different than defending yourself in a real life or death situation.  Holmes is dead.  How many others are hit by unintended fire.  Imagine the carnage!

Both scenarios are possible.  Which one is more likely to occur?

American is a violent country. Our violent crime rates far exceed those of our economic and cultural peers.  Those who believe that this fact warrants the infusion of additional firearms into circulation should check out our violent crime rates compared to those countries that ban gun ownership. There is no comparison. Our violent crime rates far exceed most similar nations because we allow our citizens to carry firearms.  That’s not an ideological statement.  It is simply a factual one.  The path to reducing this country’s incidents of violent crime is to take guns off the streets...not make gun ownership easier.

Our family will undoubtedly take in a movie some time; and the Aurora shooting incident is bound to cross our mind.  We won’t be worried that some guy all “geared up” in Kevlar will burst through the door and open fire.  But we WILL wonder what the guy sitting next to us holding a big gulp and giant popcorn may have tucked in his waste band.                     

     

Amen!

“Soothing words are nice but maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country…I mean, there are so many murders with guns every day, it’s just got to stop…And instead of the two people-President Obama and Governor Romney-talking in broad things about they want to make the world a better place, ok, tell us how….In the end it’s all about leadership at a national level, which is whoever is going to be president of the United States starting next January 1^st-what are they going to do about guns?...This is killing people every day, and it’s growing and it’s not just an inner city, east coast, west coast, big city phenomenon.  Aurora is not a big city.”

New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg commenting on the Aurora, Colorado shootings.

Amen!  

Penn State Should Shut Down Its Football Program

When the Penn State story broke we knew that the initial reaction would be to shut down the football program. We balked at that solution because it didn’t seem fair to punish hundreds of players, coaches and staff members not to mention thousands of students and alumni who had nothing to do with Sandusky’s sickening actions or the inexcusable cover up.  We felt that this was much more than a football scandal; it was a cultural cancer that had wormed its way to the highest reaches of the university and perhaps even the local community.  The PSU administration was such an integral part of this scandal we wondered how you could shut down the football program without shutting down the entire university.  We struggled over a fair solution. 

And then something happened that put everything into perspective.

There is a statue of Joe Paterno that stands near the PSU athletic facilities.  We now know that a number of Penn State students have taken up a vigil to guard the statue against acts of vandalism.  If this is the perspective from which PSU students view the horrific scandal that has enveloped their community; then the remedy is clear.  Penn State football needs to pay a price for looking the other way while children were being abused.  And the Pennsylvania State University needs to pay a price for creating an environment where money, power and celebrity are more highly valued than human decency...not just within the football program but the university community as well.

Pennsylvania State University should shut down its football program for the foreseeable future because the football program and the university are one in the same.  Football is PSU…and PSU is football.  They cannot be separated.  So ingrained is the importance of football in this place that the highest officials at the university chose to protect its legacy at the expense of the victims.  So powerful the coach that in the midst of a scandal so horrific it leaves one speechless, he has the audacity to negotiate a raise.  So integral is football into the very fiber of what this university is all about that students protect a monument to football’s guardian…even though that guardian valued his own legacy over the lives of children.

Make no mistake, Penn State is not alone.  There are any number of towns throughout the country where football holds an over abundance of power…not just within the university but the community as well.  It is the cash cow that funds the other athletic programs.  It is the ATM that floats the local economies.  It is the bell cow that puts many universities and many communities on the map.  In many cases without football there would be no university.  And without the university many communities would seek to exist.  But no amount of money, prestige or notoriety can excuse the culture endemic at Penn State.

The NCAA is reviewing the matter.  They may decide to shut down the football program for a year or two.  But why wait on an organization that is the embodiment of corruption and hypocrisy.      

We call on Penn State to shut down its football program and reclaim its university.  Send a message that human decency, compassion and the right of law are more important than power, money and celebrity.          

     

The Hypocrisy In Protecting The Defense Budget

There is an important battle going on in Congress right now that has yet to work its way through the noise about Bain Capital and Romney’s tax returns.  It is a partisan battle over defense spending.  And it demonstrates quite clearly the difference in values embraced by the two political parties.

At the core of the debate is $500 billion in defense spending cuts that will automatically kick in January of 2013.  These “sequestration” cuts are the result of the Super Committee’s failure to reach a compromise on debt reduction.  Now that these cuts are about to become reality certain members of congress are looking for any way possible to head them off.

Naturally Republicans are leading this charge.  They argue that the additional $500 billion in sequestration cuts on top of the 10% defense cuts that the Obama administration has already enacted will endanger our national security. They argue that these defense cuts will add as many as 2,000,000 Americans to the unemployment rolls.  They also note that money spent on defense  trickles down to supporting industries like machine shops and tech firms…providing a stimulus to the economy.  To cut those funds will only serve to hurt the economy.

Does anyone see the hypocrisy here?  These are the same Republicans who railed against Obama’s stimulus plan and auto industry bailout.  These are the same Republicans who opposed government intervention to save the jobs of teachers and firefighters and police.  Let’s get this straight…government intervention to save the jobs of auto workers, teachers, firefighters and policemen while stimulating the economy…bad!  But government intervention to stimulate the economy and save the jobs of the defense industry that last year reported almost $700 billion in revenues and record profits of $60 billion…good!

Hypocrisy aside, the other part of this that makes no sense is that our defense budget continues to rise while the actual use of our military forces ebbs and flows.  We start by funding our military for a particular cause…to help Europe defeat Hitler, to protect post war Europe from an aggressive Stalin, to fight the cold war, Vietnam and most recently to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  But when these conflicts end we never seem to roll back the funding; it just keeps building upon itself layer upon layer.  In 2011 forty one percent of all money spent globally on defense comes from US taxpayers…roughly 30% of our budget.  The US spends more on defense than the next top 15 countries combined.  And most of them are our allies.

How does this happen?  It stems from an imperialistic view of the world and a ham fisted approach as the self appointed world’s policeman.  Europe is no longer in peril and the cold war is long over.  Yet we continue to flex our muscle and spend our blood and increasing limited treasure on defense while other countries invest in infrastructure and education.  All for the benefit of huge defense contractors who shelter their profits in offshore accounts.   

Republicans like to pontificate about the evils of deficit spending.  They like to demonize government involvement in private industry.  But when it comes to defense spending and the private industry that supports our military they sing a different tune.

If you want to talk about austerity measures as a means of reducing the debt and deficit we can have that discussion.  But for that conversation to have any substance you have to put defense spending on the table.