Much Ado About Nothing

I do not understand the resentment being directed at President Obama over Chicago’s failed Olympic bid.  Sure, the president flew to Copenhagen to address the International Olympic Committee.  And, sure, Chicago wasn’t awarded the Olympics.  But the people who are asking if Obama made a huge mistake are making foolish, false analogies.  This wasn’t like a coach calling a risky play that doesn’t work out, losing the game for the team.  Obama didn’t have a Mitt Romney level of involvement in this venture.  All he did was fly to Denmark, make a speech, and go home.  But–oh, no!–he spent all that time flying across the ocean when our country is in such terrible economic danger!  Really?  Many of the people griping about Obama’s trip are the same people who defended President Bush and his 490 days of vacation in Crawford by saying that he was still working.   And we were in plenty of danger while he was president.  As those people pointed out at the time, the president is never out of reach, whether in Washington or Crawford.  And Air Force One is the most “connected” aircraft on earth.  Were tax dollars wasted to take Obama all the way to Europe?  I guess.  But weren’t tax dollars wasted to take President Bush on seventy-seven trips to Texas?  Or to fly Air Force One over NASCAR race tracks?

The facts are these: If you’ve ever been to Chicago, you know it’s an amazing city, and would be a great Olympic host.  But Rio was going to win the Olympics no matter what.  South America has never held an Olympic games, and, really, it was due.

Obama wanted to go to bat for his home town and his country.  The leaders of the other bidding countries did the same thing.  This isn’t a big deal.

A Brief History of Discourse

Debate is healthy–essential, even–to a thriving democracy.  But debate requires that all parties tell the truth.  Dishonesty poisons social discourse, and invariably prevents us from arriving at common ground and reaching important goals.

I am extremely troubled by the misinformation–lies, really–being spread about the proposed health care reform slowly winding its way through Congress.  The misinformation takes many forms, but at its heart lies a straw man.  That is, some of those who strongly oppose health care reform are deliberately distorting what reform would mean in an effort to make change appear undesirable.  So, for example, they make outrageous claims that, under the Obama plan, the elderly will face forced euthanasia (or any sort of euthanasia), when, in fact, all the proposal would do is give patients the option of discussing advanced directives regarding life-support should they ever suffer a perpetual coma.  There is nothing wrong or even scary about that.  In fact, in the wake of the Terry Schiavo calamity, you would think that everyone would be in favor of such a logical proposal.  But, by misinterpreting what the legislation would do, those making false claims are able to frame the debate in new terms.  If all you hear are people screaming at their congressmen at town hall meetings, you, too, might walk away with the wrong ideas of what health care reform would look like.  (There is a curious similarity between some of those screaming about health care and others screaming about President Obama’s citizenship.)

Another common refrain amongst those who–for whatever reason–oppose reform is that citizens of other nations which have some form of national health care (“socialized medicine!”) or single-payer program (which isn’t even on the table here in the USA, though, mark my words, it will happen in my lifetime) receive much worse care than Americans.  Generally, these arguments point to the “long waits” that patients must endure before receiving essential treatment.  I don’t doubt that patients needing elective operations occasionally have to wait their turns.  But I strongly suspect that the more horrifying claims are greatly exaggerated.  Moreover, when you consider that many tens of millions of Americans are not able to receive those procedures at all, waiting a few weeks doesn’t seem that bad.

But, others who claim that “America has the greatest health care system in the world”, which is demonstrably false if you use almost any measurable criteria, like to make different, more terrifying false claims.  A hilarious one appears in the latest Investors Business Journal.  It suggests that the British public health system is terrible because of “rationing”, and that “the stories of people dying on a waiting list or being denied care altogether read like a horror movie script”.  If, the article states, the bureaucrats don’t believe your life is worth saving, they cut you off, and “you get to curl up in a corner and die”.  Now, you might expect such a shabbily written and poorly researched article to cite ridiculous and unreliable tabloids like the New York Post, and this one does.  And you might also expect it make the sinister insinuation that American patients will be “compelled” to pull their own plugs, so to speak, and this one does that, as well.  But you probably would not have believed that anyone who receives money to write words could make a mistake this stupid:

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

Investors Business Journal probably ought to have asked British scientist Stephen Hawking, who lives in the United Kingdom, where they have the National Health Service, if he agreed with that premise.  He would probably have told them that he “wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the NHS”.  That is, in fact, exactly what he told The Guardian.  The ignorance of facts displayed by the Investors Business Journal is not unlike that demonstrated by those fools who claim that, even if President Obama was born in Hawaii–which they’re not willing to concede–he cannot be an American citizen because his father was Kenyan, which is clearly wrong.

It is, of course, appropriate to discuss what this health care reform will cost and how we will pay for it.  And it is entirely understandable that many who oppose abortion would be troubled to think of their money going to cover abortions.  I resent that even a penny of my tax dollars goes to pay for chemicals that the state of Florida uses to kill human beings strapped to a table.  So, their concerns are fair, and we should discuss our options.  But intellectual dishonesty makes legitimate debate impossible, and the fanatics who insist nothing is wrong with what we have, or who seek to make the perfect the enemy of the good, are only making things worse.

It Depends on What You Mean by “Modify”

On NPR this morning, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor said, “the default rate on mortgages that have been modified thus far is very high”.  This statement caught my attention because, first, I have been saying for quite a while that getting people out of ARMs and into 30-year fixed-rate loans is the best way to prevent foreclosures, and, second, it is intentionally misleading.

Last week I read about two people in south Florida who had their mortgages modified.  One woman’s interest rate dropped 11% when her terms were changed.  Another man saw no change in his monthly payment because the bank added so many fees and penalties.  She kept her house; he went into foreclosure after all.

Rep. Cantor is right that the default rate on modified mortgages is high, but only if your definition of “modified” is very broad:

“It’s becoming more and more clear to us that if you do real modifications the default rate is significantly lower”, said Tom Miller, the attorney general of Iowa, who has led a group of state officials pushing the industry to modify more loans. “They shouldn’t be called modifications if people pay more or approximately the same”.

The facts are that genuine modifications keep 75% of borrowers in their homes, and allow them to stay current.  If the “modifications” Rep. Cantor criticizes fail, it’s because they aren’t modifications at all.

I’m Glad…

…That Tom Daschle has withdrawn his nomination.  Sure, most of his tax problems were ones I could imagine happening to anyone who has multiple sources of income, and spends money in ways that I do not, like receiving rides in limousines and airplanes.  And I am still shocked and appalled at the ways in which the rich are not paying their taxes.  If I owed the IRS over $100,000 I’d probably be in jail.  But all that aside, I think that Tom Daschle, however nice a person he is in his private life, was an exceptionally weak senator who wasn’t strong enough to win reelection for his seat, much less effectively execute a leadership role when he had that opportunity.  I feel the same way about Harry Reed today, and Nancy Pelosi in the house.  They are lame.  The Republicans lost power because their ideas were bad, and their execution of those ideas was even worse.  Also, many of them were terrifically corrupt.  But Tom Delay was no weakling, and Newt Gingrich had guts.  I think they’re both awful people, but they did what their constituents wanted them to do.

I think Barack Obama is a smart, capable man.  I want him to be surrounded by other smart, capable people.  Tom Daschle doesn’t seem very capable to me.

More Political Ranting

First, Dick Cheney is human garbage.  He just told Jim Lehrer that he doesn’t believe that the public disapproves of his actions and performance as vice president.  When reminded of his historically low approval ratings, he said something to the effect that that’s not what he’s hearing from people.  No kidding!  Imagine that: Dick Cheney–the man who disappears from the public eye for long stretches; gives few interviews, especially to legitimate news organizations; spends a considerable amount of time in a bunker–doesn’t realize that an enormous majority of Americans think he bears considerable personal responsibility for much of the United States’ present difficulties.  Cheney, lest we forget, has been wrong about almost every single thing that has happened in the past eight years.  He would probably still tell you that there are weapons of mass destruction, and that Iraq really was in the last throes of the insurgency in 2005.

Second, what is wrong with this Timothy Geithner guy?  If you’re just some regular dude, I can understand being confused about what has and hasn’t been withheld from your paycheck.  But this guy is supposed to be running the Treasury Department?  I think an awareness of your personal tax liability should be among the minimum qualifications to hold that job.  Meanwhile, it seems the common denominator amongst all rich and powerful wankers is undocumented household employees.  Two tips:

  1. If you’re rich enough to hire household help, you’re rich enough to hire a U.S. citizen.  Don’t be so cheap.
  2. President-elect Obama should drop this guy.  There’re better people out there.