I've moved (sort of). Synched up my URL with my blog name:

http://jaxfrustratedcitizen.blogspot.com/

Why Was Obama Elected?

Courtney E. Martin, in a piece in The American Prospect about Obama and the healthcare issue, said this:

Last year, voters made clear that, after propping up the economy, reforming our health-care system should be the president's top priority.

Her link goes to a collection of polls that consistently show Healthcare as a distant 3rd or 4th.
How about:

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 30-Nov. 1, 2008:
Economy 57%
War in Iraq 13%
Healthcare 13%

Or:

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Oct. 25-29, 2008
The economy and jobs 55%
Terrorism and national security 13%
Healthcare 9%

Or:

Newsweek Poll Oct. 22-23, 2008.

Economy and jobs 44%

Taxes, government spending 14%

Terrorism, national security 12%

Healthcare 8%

The first poll where Healthcare is second is this one, AFTER the election.

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Dec. 19-21, 2008

The economy 75%

Healthcare 7%

In my book 75% to 7% is not a second 'top priority'.


So what am I if I say Ms. Martin is lying by her statement that "voters made clear that, after propping up the economy, reforming our health-care system should be the president's top priority"? It's clearly not, by the very polls she references.

More fun with TIME:  Obama's Health-Care Challenge: Keeping the Focus on the Larger Goals, by Karen Tumulty.

An unnamed White House official was quoted as saying:

"There are those on the left who believe this would be the nose under the tent for single-payer. There are those on the right who suspect that this could be the nose under the tent for single-payer. The left and the right love to do that kind of minuet. I don't want to denigrate those views so much as to say that it is an unproductive sideshow to the major debate here."

THAT is why Americans are so upset about all this.  Single-payer, or a stepping stone to single-payer, or defacto single-payer when you add up the mandates and fines, is NOT what the U.S. wants or needs.  That IS the major issue, and as long as all the politicians keep discussing ways THEY can 'fix' things, and those fixes can get anywhere closer to single-payer, then the citizens of this country are going to be justifiably worried.  


I think the smart U.S. citizen from either side of the aisle (and the majority of us are within an arms length of the middle) knows that what is broken (cost of premiums, lack of portability, need for tort reform) could be greatly improved if not solved by free market solutions that wouldn't cost tax payers one dime in government spending or added bureaucracy: interstate competition, tax breaks for individuals, small business pooling, eliminate policy mandates, and tort reform.


Why won't Congress go that way?  One word: Power.

The latest TIME cover story "Out of work in America" ,by Joshua Ramo, caught my eye with this subtitle: "Why double digit unemployment may be here to stay - and how to live with it" (emphasis mine).

My first thought was here's main stream 'Big Media' making excuses for Obama now (9.5% unemployment) and for the future ('how to live with it'). Well, the article doesn't live up to that expectation completely. It's worse. Rather than making excuses for how to live with high unemployment, it advocates for even BIGGER government policies and spending to cope with and remedy this situation.

But it does attempt to shield Obama from any blame for the high unemployment, without blatantly continuing the 'It's all Bush's fault' line, with an 'if we make it seem like long-term double digit unemployment is a fait accompli, it won't hurt Him when it happens' tactic: "[T]he country faces the prospect of long-term, double-digit unemployment;" "Will double-digit unemployment persist even after we emerge from this recession?"; "And if the result is that we're stuck with persistent 9%-to-11% unemployment for a while.."; "[T]he Federal Reserve is predicting moderate growth at best. That means more than a decade without real employment expansion." (I could go on, but I'm starting to feel a little woozy).

That one about '9% to 11%' is an onerous subtheme to this story: this recession is Obama's 9-11, The Great Crisis, offering him the power, if he will only seize it, to remake the economy how he sees fit, like Bush remade the military, our foreign policy, and his presidency following the true 9-11.

With that early hint at the 9-11 crisis theme, the author first lays the ground for why we are at this point. Every bad economic fact ("The American economy has been shedding jobs much, much faster than Okun's law predicts" [i.e., at a predictable rate]) is countered by and explained by mystic forces that no one can explain ("Something new and possibly strange seems to be happening in this recession, something unpredicted by the experts.") Larry Summers, the president's top economic adviser, is a primary source for this article because his specialty in economics is labor. What does he think? "[I]f you could have areas where there was long term substantial unemployment, then that raised some questions about the functioning of markets." The author continues, "In essence, Summers saw in unemployment a chance to explore how markets don't work - and to think about policies that could correct for the failures."

So now that the author, aided and abetted by the President's very own economic adviser, has constructed the false baseline that we have no idea how we got here, he lays out the solution. "The jobs crisis offers an opportunity [Rham's 'don't let a crisis go to waste', anyone?] to think in profound ways about how and why we work, about what makes employment satisfying, about the jobs Americans can and should do best. But the ideas Washington has delivered so far are insufficient. ...[W]e're hearing few interesting ideas about how to enhance America's already groaning unemployment support system.." (emphasis added).

What really struck me was the part about 'the jobs Americans can and SHOULD do best'. He's saying Government should decide what jobs we will be doing, not companies that operate in the market place, learning what goods and services people are willing to pay for. But the Government! Scary thought.

Ramo lays out the options, as he sees them. As a bone to conservatives, he throws out the '1930s option', having "the government directly employ millions of people in labor fronts". Wait, he didn't throw that out on conservative principles, but because it is impractical to try and persuade 'laid off hedge-fund traders to switch to sewer repair'.

OK, what is option 2? Rely on "traditional strategies" to "create demand through growth, cheap money and massive government spending." OK, I'll give him credit: this is a jab at both Bush AND Obama. But that will only have a minor impact, he reports ("some jobs will return"). Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, he spends a great deal of time promoting the idea that the exact jobs lost will not return, but only "whatever work they can get - fast food, nursing, you name it." Yeah, nursing is just one of those jobs 'you get'. Apparently, in every previous down turn except the Great Depression, everyone that was laid off got hired back at the exact same job at the same wage when the recovery occurred.

So Option 2 doesn't give us what he wants, the jobs Americans "should do". What we need, is:

1. "[A]n omnibus employment emergency bill that guarantees jobless workers a basic set ofÿ rights for two or three years":
A. "Healthcare".
B. "Access to retraining".
C. "Subsidized mentoring for careers in high-end manufacturing or health services".

2. Obama should "bring together innovative minds in technology and service - the people who run consumer-driven businesses like Disney and Google - to find ways to make the process of being unemployed less of a bureaucratic and emotional mess."

3. "[A] sensible set of policies would shift the landscape of job creation. It would transfer money out of Wall Street and into community lending to encourage the formation of new companies. It would create local business pods [WTF?] in which neighbors ask, What do we do well here, and how can we do it better?"

The author sums up his position nicely: "[T]raditional government policies are not going to pull us out of the job trap." Apparently we just haven't spent enough money in the right places to simply remake our economy and our workers so everyone comes back together in happy full employment with high union wages.

You know what's missing from this? Any acknowledgment whatsoever that maybe one of the reasons the markets aren't working, or this recession isn't following the rules, IS BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT! The economy is broken, and only the WE we believe in can fix it!

Maybe the government should get out of the way, and stop looking at workers as groups that need retraining. Stop seeing companies as providing the right or wrong type of job, or the right or wrong type of product. Maybe if the government started allowing individuals to decide for themselves what jobs they want to do, at what wage, for what benefits, and let our great companies decide what products to bring to market and compete, lowering the price while improving the performance and service, THEN the economy would recover just fine.

About that DHS report 'Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political
Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment' (good analysis here):

My take is that it is not something that has been in the works since before Obama was elected (as postulated at LGF). It's a nine page throwaway 'intel' report that I could make in about 2 hours. I think the new DHS folks cranked it out as cover of a sort for a wide range of criticism of the Obama administration (from abortion and gun control, to immigration and veterans). Anyone that criticizes the Obama administration on any issue mentioned here is instantly tarnished as a 'rightwing extremist', with an easy reference to this 'document'. I'd call it politics at it's worst.

Blame me for adding to the 'hyperventilation in the right-wing blogospher (LGF quote)', but that's how I see it.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Check out this interview with Bill Clinton (and transcript if you don't want to listen to him) on CNN by Dr. Gupta.

Bill Clinton doesn't appear to know that an embryo is a FERTILIZED EGG. That embryo is a human (put it in a womb and it will grow into a baby). How many people that rant and rave about government financing for embryonic stem cell research don't understand this?? How many think it is just a cell or something totally non-human? Would knowing it is a fertilized egg ('conception' has occurred) change their opinion?

How NOT to be a President

From this article, "Obama signs 'imperfect' spending bill in private", by Philip Elliot on Townhall.com:

Calling it an "imperfect" bill, President Barack Obama signed a $410 billion spending package Wednesday that includes billions in earmarks like those he promised to curb in last year's campaign. He insisted the bill must signal an "end to the old way of doing business." The massive measure supporting federal agencies through the fall contains nearly 8,000 pet projects, earmarked by sponsors though denounced by critics.

Obama defended earmarks when they're "done right," allowing lawmakers to direct money to worthy projects in their districts. But he said they've been abused, and he promised to work with Congress to curb them.

"I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government," Obama declared. "But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change."

First: "HEY OBAMA! YOU'RE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!" (yes, I'm yelling) "You have this tool called the VETO. If you think earmarks are wrong, or not "done right", VETO THE BILL! Send it back to Congress and tell them to start over and remove the earmarks. "

Second: He's a liar because of the second bolded part of the quote. It was not necessary to sign the bill. He could veto it, insist Congress pass a continuing resolution to fund the government at current levels until whenever, like how about the end of the fiscal year, Sept 30th. Then they have all summer to debate how to 'do it right'.

Third: This is just more evidence that Obama isn't a leader or an executive in any sense of the word. He is a talker, a 'Community Organizer-in-Chief'. He's going to do whatever the Demo Congress wants, sign whatever they send him. He'll talk all about what he WANTS to do, but he's not going to press them to do anything specific. What has he pressed them to do yet? Name one thing?

Rendition, Torture, and the Geneva Convention

A dear friend of mine sent me this article, "Rendition Memo Drafted Days Before Prisoner Taken to Thailand and Tortured," by Jason Leopold in The Publice Record.

My position is this:

1. Terrorists are not entitled to protections under the Geneva conventions: they don't follow it themselves, they don't wear uniforms, they don't have insignia, and they aren't the armed forces of a recognized state (all requirements to fall under the conventions)

2. That being said, I think waterboarding is the limit of interrogation techniques we should use. I don't think waterboarding, or less severe forms of discomfort or humiliation, are out of bounds, for these detainees. I've been through Navy SERE school, and was subjected to various treatments similar to waterboarding that people call torture these days. It was not torture. It wasn't fun, but it wasn't torture.

3. My #1 and 2 above do not apply to members of recognized armed forces (Iran for instance). Then the Geneva conventions would apply.

4. Anyone caught on the field of battle, whether a uniformed soldier or terrorist, does not fall under our criminal justice system, nor are they entitled to any protections under our Constitution. Our constitution protects our citizens against our government. Captured personnel are either POWS (Geneva convention subjects) or detainees. They are not entitled to having charges filed against them or any other type of civil criminal proceeding. POWS are held until the cessation of hostilities.

Detainees are a stickier situation, as evidenced by released Gitmo detainees returning to the battlefield. I completely believe that Gitmo is required for these hardened terrorists to be held indefinitely. I also think military tribunals such as were set up can review detainee cases and those deemed no or little threat could be released. Not every terrorist caught on the battlefield is going to be a 'master planner'. Some might easily be just 'hired guns' and I think the system was in place to handle those cases.

5. I see these terrorists as the worst of the worst. They aren't just fighting our armed forces trying to effect a political outcome 'by a different means'. They are trying to destroy us and our way of life. I think we must combat that with maximum effort. I think that includes
'harsh interrogation techniques' because the information gained may be protecting civilian lives on the homefront, which is paramount.

6. For the case of US citizens caught fighting against us on the battlefield, I think that is an easy case of treason. Case closed, bring on the firing squad.

7. For US citizens caught plotting, planning, or carrying out domestic terrorism (ie, Timothy McVeigh), the US courts and criminal justice system will handle that.

Just to be clear in closing, I don't agree with Yoo's extreme interpretation of the Constitution that because the President is commander in chief he can do anything he wants under the guise of conducting a war. I think he can order US forces to do anything he wants overseas, but Congress still holds the purse strings and provides a check by limiting funds for things (ie, not providing funds to fight in Iraq, say). I think he can conduct rendition, because the detainees never come under the purview of the US court system or congress in that sense.

I am no legal scholar by any means, but that is my understanding of things. Also, I think Obama left himself plenty of operational leeway with how his Executive Order was worded. Don't kid yourself for a minute that he is going to paint himself completely into a corner. There is plenty of room in there to conduct things pretty much the same way as the Bush administration.

Great Resources

Here are a few sites that are great resources for insight on our government and what it is doing to you, as well as some great solutions:

The Heritage Foundation

The FairTax

Townhall

National Review Online

The Patriot Post

American Thinker

American Solutions for Winning the Future