US Walks Diplomatic Tightrope

If the recent events in Egypt tell us anything they tell us that the United States role in the Middle East has probably been altered forever.  As the governments in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen fall and autocrats in Jordan and Syria brace themselves for civil unrest, the United States finds itself walking a diplomatic tightrope.  On one side civil unrest is threatening to unseat governments that have been friendly to our interests.  On the other side citizens of those countries are rising up in search of principals that we hold dear: freedom from oppression and free democratic elections.  While the United States supports the will of the people in deciding their own fate there is great trepidation that the results of these uprisings may drastically threaten the stability of the area and weaken America’s place therein.  The elections in Iran and Lebanon give credence to those fears.

Egypt is the most critical.  Home to over one third of the world’s Muslim population the Middle East looks to Egypt for stability.  A shift in that government to a more radical movement could turn the whole region into chaos.  A closing of the Suez Canal would have worldwide economic implications.  

We can see that the domino effect already taking place.  In Jordan the monarchy has dismissed its government and appointed a Prime Minister, all in an effort to head off an Egyptian style revolt.  In Syria protestors have called for a “Day of Rage” march against the family government.  While Syria is not an ally of the US the unrest in that country is no less troubling.

And while these historic events occur the world is watching closely to see how the United States will respond when their allies are threatened.  Will the US continue to support the governments that have provided it with political cover in this volatile region?  Or will we throw them under the bus and cast our lot with the masses who have long been oppressed by these same allies?  

One In Five American Children Living In Poverty

If turn on your television today you will find yourself inundated with reports of the unrest in Egypt.    What you won’t find is this headline;

ONE IN FIVE AMERICAN CHILDREN ARE LIVING IN POVERTY

In the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the planet, a country of unfathomable wealth an opportunity…

ONE IS FIVE AMERICAN CHILDREN ARE LIVING IN POVERTY

How can this happen?  How can this country, of all the countries in the world, turn a blind eye to this problem?  How can we afford to build hospitals and schools and milk production plants around the world when our very own children are hungry?

This problem that we have starts with education.  Education breeds opportunity.  Opportunity allows people to pull themselves up out of the bowels of poverty.  But our education system is in disarray, our schools are in disrepair and too many of our teachers are allowed to teach because their continued employment is based on their tenure rather than their effectiveness.  In many ways the quality of the education that our children receive is based primarily on the zip code in which they live.

So what are we going to do about it?  Some of our leaders want to cut education subsidies and others want eliminate the department of education altogether.  But that will not fix the problem.  It will only transfer the burden to the states that are already on the verge of bankruptcy and rely on the federal government to stay afloat.

Education is the key to the future of our country.  We need to do better.  We need to focus our energy and our resources on OUR children instead of every other dark corner of the world.

The unrest in Egypt is a compelling story.  It grabs our attention for we are watching history being made.  We need to give our children that same attention for they are our history.

ONE IN FIVE AMERICAN CHILDREN ARE LIVING IN POVERTY

    

  

Still Litigating Health Care Reform

The Associated Press reports that a federal judge declared President Obama’s health care reform unconstitutional Monday.  At issue is whether the government is reaching beyond its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce by requiring citizens to purchase health insurance or face tax penalties.  The ruling declared the mandate to purchase unconstitutional but stopped short of voiding the entire law.  No doubt the final say in the matter will rest with the Supreme Court.

Opponents of the law immediately praised the decision.  House Speaker John Boehner said: “Today’s decision affirms the view held by most of the states and a majority of the American people, that the federal government should not be in the business of forcing you to buy health insurance and punishing you if you don’t.”

There is no question that this bill needs work.  In its entirety it is a massive, complicated document that resulted from Democrats bowing to the will of Republicans  with the results being a watered down hodgepodge that is a boondoggle to the insurance companies.

But there are good aspects to the bill that an order to repeal will eliminate.  Most Americans don’t want insurance companies to decline to cover them when they have a pre-existing condition.  Most Americans want to be able to take their coverage with them if they change jobs, are fired or laid off.  Most Americans want the flexibility of keeping their unemployed kids on their policies until age 26 if necessary.  These positive aspects would be cast aside if the entire bill is deemed unconstitutional.

While the Republicans have worked hard to quash the bill they have offered little in the way of replacement solutions.   Their recommendations thus far have been limited to a reduction in taxes for small businesses and allowing insurance companies to sell their products across state lines.  Those remedies won’t replace the items listed above.  They won’t make coverage more affordable.  And they won’t make coverage available to the now 50 million people who do not have access to decent affordable health care.

I have a family member who needed an operation.  The surgery was deemed elective and in order to be covered required a full year of physical tests, psychological tests, doctor visits and other pre-op screening measures.  All of the results of these tests were forwarded to the insurance company as they occurred.  After approximately one year the insurance company approved the surgery…in writing.  The surgery was successful.  Even though the surgery was typically performed as outpatient surgery my family member stayed overnight because the insurance company required that they do so.  It took nine months for the insurance company to pay the hospital and doctor.  They declined payment on three separate occasions citing lack of pre-authorization, lack of required documentation and lack of an overnight stay.  During this period my family member received threatening phone calls and letters from the hospital demanding payment.  Finally, after nine months the insurance company paid the bills.

My mother passed away at eighty seven years of age.  In her last years she had insurance coverage through Medicare with a small supplement. During that time my mother had the following medical procedures: knee replacement, shoulder replacement, emergency surgery for a peptic ulcer, hip replacement, heart attack and three weeks of hospice care in my home.  The only bills we ever saw were for the telephone and television in her room.  Everything else was paid by Medicare with no questions.

It appears that we may spend the remaining two years of the Obama administration litigating health care reform all over again.  Maybe this time they will get it right.  Medicare for all!  

Egypt Is Up for Grabs

The lead story in the news of late is all about the unrest in Egypt.  Most of us Americans watch with limited curiosity and then go about our daily lives.  Why should we care?  What affect will the unrest in Egypt have on us?  The answer is that it could be substantial.

The United States provides $1.5 billion per year in aide to Egypt; most of it in the form of military assistance.  Only Israel receives more.  Why?  Because in the Middle East Egypt stands as our lone partner in the war against terror.  And they alone stand with us in support of Israel.  Experts say there is no question that a stable Egypt has kept us safe.  It is for that reason that while we have tried to nudge Egypt toward a more compassionate, equitable treatment of its citizens we have been cautious in our approach.  They are a key player in maintaining stability in the region.  An unstable Egypt could result in an even greater US investment into the area…in both treasure and blood.

Egypt is a youthful country.  Sixty percent of the citizens are under the age of thirty and thirty percent of them are unemployed.  The protestors want jobs, freedom and the end to what they feel is an oppressive government.  Sound familiar?

So as the movement in Egypt grows from a youth movement to a countrywide work stoppage the US finds itself in a difficult position.  The natural tendency is to support the will of the people; to call for the current government to step down and for free democratic elections to be held.  But that is a difficult position to take when the current government has been one of our few allies in the region.

The US has historically called upon governments that are facing domestic unrest to initiate reform and conduct open democratic elections.  Be careful what you wish for. The recent “elections” in Iran and Lebanon have not provided results that are the US best interests.    The Muslim Brotherhood and numerous other radical factions are eager to step into the Egyptian void.

In the battle between US interests and those of radical Islamic Fundamentalists, a shift in the Egyptian power structure could drastically affect the stability of the region and the US position therein.

Egypt is up for grabs.       

    

       

    

The Truth About Privatizing Medicare

During the mid-term campaign Republicans railed against Obama’s health care plan.  One of their assertions was that Obama was going to reduce Medicare benefits and use the savings to pay for his health care plan.  Never mind that the reduction in Medicare the Democrats sought was not in the benefits paid to seniors but in the waste, fraud and abuse in providing those benefits.  Now that they are in the majority Republicans want to push forward their plans for privatizing Medicare. 

According to the plan authored by Representative Paul Ryan they want to scrap the current Medicare system in its entirety.  Instead of providing Medicare payments seniors would be given a coupon which they would use to purchase private health care coverage in the free marketplace.

First of all the hypocrisy in this plan is palpable.  Anyone who thinks that privatizing Medicare won’t drastically reduce the benefits that seniors receive doesn’t understand the basic principles of insurance or economics.  There is no way that a 65 year old individual is going to buy coverage equivalent to current Medicare benefits with a “coupon” UNLESS that coupon is for a sum of money in the tens thousands of dollars per year. The older you get the more health insurance products cost.  This is particularly true when you are buying the product as an individual rather than in a large group.  Large groups have the power of numbers when negotiating price with a prospective insurance company.  Medicare, for example has a great deal of leverage in negotiating coverage and price due to the huge number of people they represent.  A 65 year old individual does not.  Furthermore, it costs more to insure the elderly because they are far more apt to need and use health care benefits than younger healthier citizens.  Any insurance company willing to insure a pool of elderly customers is going to charge a unbelievably high price for the coverage because virtually all of them will use the coverage;  the majority of them many times over.

That brings us to the second point.  Who is going to insure these elderly people?  Who is going to insure a pool of elderly people, provide adequate benefits at a reasonable price and make money for their shareholders?

The Republicans are offering to provide seniors with a coupon to buy a product that doesn’t exist.

THAT plan will most certainly reduce costs.        

Government Lacks Courage To Make Hard Choices

When will somebody, anybody, in Washington have the courage to do the right thing for the American people?  When will one, just one of our elected leaders put fortitude and honesty over their political ambitions?  Recent events tell us we should not hold our breath.

The Associated Press reports that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that in this year alone, social security will pay out $45 billion more than it collects.  For the past thirty years the program has run surpluses which the government has conveniently borrowed to pay for other programs. Now, with the program in red ink our leaders will have to find another Peter to rob in order to pay Paul.

That will be a problem because the CBO also reports that the government’s deficit spending will rise to a new high of $1.5 trillion this year thanks in no small part to the new tax cuts which add $400 billion to the deficit.  So not only is there not enough money to pay back Social Security, there’s no money…period.

So how do our elected leaders respond to this monumental problem that threatens the country’s very existence?

Lets’ start with the President.  On Tuesday night he gave the State of the Union address.  In his speech he challenged the country to “Win the Future”.  He proposed increased investments in education, infrastructure and innovation.  He said that “this is our Sputnik moment.”  How does he intend to pay for these investments?  His solution is to freeze discretionary spending at current levels for five years and roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy.  First of all discretionary spending is 12% of the budget.  In terms of overall spending it is a pimple on the butt of an elephant.  To freeze discretionary spending and expect any significant results is laughable and downright disingenuous.  Rolling back the tax cuts on the rich will have some impact.  But the chances of getting that past a Republican controlled House are slim and none….and the President knows that.  The President acknowledged the gorilla in the room, Social Security, saying we need to stabilize the program.  But he gave no specifics.  And he completely ignored the current hot topic, gun control.  His staff promised that the President would speak out on guns “soon”.  We’ll see.

Republicans are no better.  After months of campaign promises to cut the deficit and tackle Social Security they offer no specifics.  In fact when asked for their recommendations thy say they are waiting for the President to put forth his ideas and then they will comment.  Their only overt effort to tackle the deficit was to hold unemployment benefits hostage while they pushed Obama to approve the tax cuts for the wealthy; thereby ADDING $900 billion to the deficit over the next ten years.  When asked if he had a “Sputnik moment” Speaker Boehner said “you want a Sputnik moment?  I’ll give you a Sputnik moment.  We’re broke!  And the American people know we’re broke.”   Yet Mr. Boehner and his party offer no solutions.

 No one has the intestinal fortitude to step up and say what we need to do to fix financial problems.  They are all afraid that to speak the truth about the hard cuts that need to be made will cost them their jobs.  So they wait for the other side to do the dirty work so they can pounce on them for political gain.

Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough said, “Politicians are cowards.”  He’s right.

SOTU, A Foreign Policy Speech

While last night’s State of the Union address focused on domestic economic issues in was also a foreign policy speech.  In urging Americans to focus on education, infrastructure and innovation he was talking to the rest of the world as well.  He was telling them “we’re coming”.  He was telling them that no longer will America continue to lag behind in these critical areas.  He was telling them that the America that first landed on the moon, built the interstate highway system, and led the world in research and development and the production  of new products is back.  He was telling the world that we will not cower to those that want to harm us and that our fight against terrorism will not stop.

More telling perhaps is what the President didn’t say.  The President took the time to rattle off a litany of foreign countries where America is deeply involved: Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Tunisia etc.  Glaring in their omission were Israel, Palestine and Lebanon.  What does that mean?  Has the President given up on peace in the Middle East or is there something eminent to be announced later?