I put a lot of effort (physical, intellectual and emotional) into supporting my friend Joe Fox in his bid to unseat the incumbent, Andrew Hevesi, in the recent Democratic primary for the 28th Assembly District here in New York.
We were fighting long odds, considering that New York has the highest percentage of incumbency re-election in the country. We were fighting an incumbent with a known name. A tainted name to be sure, but known nevertheless. The turnout was low, about 12%. This was not unexpected. It meant that in a district of approx 36,000 eligible Democratic voters, it would take about 3000 votes to win.
Fighting an incumbent in a primary presents some entrenched problems. An experienced local politician pointed out to me that in a local primary, the incumbent starts out with a 1000-0 lead. This is because ALL the people who work at the polls....those elderly women who sit at the tables, ALL vote for the incumbent because they perceive that their paid poll worker jobs come from the incumbent. Between those poll workers, and supervisors, and staff, and people who are active in local politics, you have 1000 people, and the one thing they ALL do is vote.
So, Joe Fox got 40% of the vote and was defeated by Andrew Hevesi. Andrew will be on the ballot in November, against an unknown Republican candidate and an unknown independent candidate. He will probably win, despite the fact that his father, former New York Comptroller Alan Hevesi, just plead guilty to ANOTHER felony involving corruption while in office, and despite the fact that Andrew is implicated in it and Alan obviously plead guilty to protect him. http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/hevesi-is-set-to-plead-guilty-to-felony/
I could say a lot about the Hevesi's, and the reasons Joe Fox would have made a great representative (while Andrew will continue to be a disgraceful embarrassment), but I'll save that for a future post.
I want to make some observations about the experience of participating in the Joe Fox campaign:
1. I decided to get involved because I was disgusted with Andrew Hevesi and the local political scene, and respected that Joe wanted to actually DO something about it. I admit it, I secretly wanted to run for the seat from the moment I learned that the local politicos had rigged a special election to install Andrew back in 2005. I couldn't and didn't do it, but Joe had a burning desire to make this run. I knew that I knew enough people, and had enough political savvy, to at least help him in a meaningful way. I appreciated having input in a lot of the behind the scenes decisions in the campaign. There was a stretch of time when I had some fear that if Joe lost, my involvement would "come back to haunt me"......politically, in court, or in some way. That fear left me over time, and now I'll say it for any of the local politicos to see......I helped Joe Fox, I'm proud of it, and I'd do it again.
2. Hindsight is 20-20, and analyzing the campaign, there may have been a few things we could have done to change the results and pull off a major upset. I will not list them here, because if Joe runs again, surely he will use what was learned. I will say this though.....if Andrew is reelected, ends up running again in two years, and remains as ineffectual as he has been, he can and will be beaten.
3. Felicia and I were official "poll watchers" at PS 139. I was present at 6 AM when the doors opened, so I got to witness the poll workers dealing with the new voting machines for the first time. There was some confusion at first, but the system was up and functioning by 7 AM. I thought the system worked well for the most part. People are often resistant to change, but I did not encounter anyone who could not figure out how to vote. The only thing I did not like was a lack of privacy for the voters. I observed situations where people were being "helped" to vote, and this was all out in the open.
4. I spent most of my day on the corner of 63rd Drive and Wetherole Street, attempting to talk to "voters" on their way to and from work. I say attempting because the vast majority of people would not talk to me. There seemed to be a few main reasons......
- Many did not speak a word of English. Living in Rego Park, this was not a big surprise.
- Many were non-citizens, and proud of it. Also not a big surprise.
- Many were entranced in I-Pod isolation. Probably listening to last years American Idol winners, or "rap" (as if it were music).
- Some proudly told me they never vote.
- A few told me they were voting for Hevesi, because his father had been railroaded and "all he did was use State money to take his wife to the doctor".
- A few offered memorable excuses, such as "I already voted" (this was at 7 AM). Another said "I am going to vote....tomorrow."
5. During primary day, I split my time between campaigning out on the street, and poll watching inside the school. This was permitted, as long as I did not campaign inside the school or wear anything that would indicate I was campaigning. This simply meant when I went inside, I had to take off my Joe Fox name tag. I got involved in some poll watching excitement when I noticed Andrew Hevesi campaigning right in front of the school, in the area where you are clearly not supposed to do that. I was outside at the time, and walked right past him on my way inside to report him. I said hello to him, and he said hi back, since he did not know who I was (which REALLY pissed me off). I then did what a poll watcher is supposed to do....I told the policeman on duty and the local election supervisor that Andrew Hevesi was electioneering in the restricted area. I then watched them confront him, watched him argue back, and then leave the area in disgust. Andrew, in case you are wondering how that happened....it was ME.
6. When the polls closed, as poll watcher I got to see the results come off the machines, and was responsible for calling the results in to headquarters. It took awhile for the officials to figure out how to get the results off the machines and post them. After working from 6 AM to 9 PM I was anxious to see the results. Now I know that when they say on election night that "x% of precincts are reporting", they are talking about poll-watchers like me. I was pretty disappointed, though not shocked, when I saw that Joe got about 40% at PS 139. I called it in to headquarters and asked whether this was consistent with results from other polling places. They said it was, and I knew right there we had lost. I was angry for about 10 minutes. My rant was along these lines....."how could people be so stupid? how could people be so apathetic? People get what they deserve....etc" Then, I was concerned about how Joe would take it. When I drove over to headquarters and saw that Joe accepted things like the uber-mensch he is, I began to feel great pride at what we had done.
7. Prior to the campaign, I knew Joe for about 30 years, but I'd say we were casual friends at most, and I knew his family enough to say hello, but that was about it. I now consider Joe and his family my good friends. So, in addition to the actual campaign experience, the personal aspect was enough to make the whole experience worthwhile.
So, the primaries are over and the election season is on.
I foresee some changes and shifts coming, across the State and nationally, and personally I think it is needed.
But here in the 28th A.D., it will be "same old, same old". What a shame.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Joe Fox for NYS Assembly
Dear Friends -
Next Tuesday, September 14th, there is a primary. In many ways, it’s not an exciting Democratic primary, as the Governor’s nomination is uncontested and the Attorney General race has a non-descript field of five. However, for those of us in the 28th Assembly District, this may be the most important Democratic primary in many years. That is because my good friend Joe Fox has taken a courageous action by challenging the incumbent, Andrew Hevesi. I have never been involved in a local political campaign before, but I am strongly supporting Joe Fox in this primary. For the reasons stated below, I am asking you to support Joe as well.
Approximately five years ago, our Assemblyman Michael Cohen abruptly resigned, under mysterious circumstances. Shortly thereafter, it was announced that 31 year old Andrew Hevesi would be nominated for the seat, and would be on the ballot in a “special election”. This was an orchestrated political maneuver, which essentially gave our Assembly seat to an inexperienced paralegal, whose only “qualifications” for the job were being the son of criminally convicted political figure Alan Hevesi.
Andrew Hevesi has never had to actually RUN for his seat. He was re-elected in exactly the same way he initially came to his office, being put on the ballot without challenge. Up until this year, nobody has had the courage or the support or the qualifications to contest the “powers that be” for this seat.Had Andrew Hevesi taken this seat and actually done something useful with it, I would support him, notwithstanding the undemocratic way he obtained the seat. But the fact is, he has done NOTHING with this opportunity, other than continue to be part of the problem in Albany. We have a disgraceful State legislature, which perpetuates every bad aspect of cronyism and corrupt politics. Our Assemblyman has not taken a leadership position on ANY meaningful issue or legislation during his five years in office. He speaks through “spokespeople”, and takes his lead from the “higher ups” on every important issue.
If my interest were strictly “anti-incumbent, I would not be writing. I want to place this primary in a positive light, by telling you about Joe Fox…………..I know Joe personally for over 30 years. He is a successful attorney in private practice, concentrating primarily in real estate, business transactions and bankruptcy law. He knows what it means to start and grow a business, and he knows what it means to help businesses and individuals who have REAL problems. He is down to earth, approachable, and effective in everything he does…………He is a homeowner in Forest Hills, and with his wife Helaine has raised two great children who are in their early twenties. He knows about the issues facing our schools, about the costs of higher education and its impact on families, and about employment issues facing our community………….He has been active in MANY local community issues, and it was never with an eye on politics, it was always because he wanted to use his skills to HELP…………He is not a political neophyte, as he was involved in economic development during the Koch administration. He left the political arena at that time, to pursue private law practice.
To say that he is NOT a professional politician is actually high praise, and at the same time, he is not some kid who is going to take marching orders from others. He will look out for US, first and foremost. He has decided that NOW is the time for him to give back, and to return to the political arena, precisely because he has something worthwhile to offer. HE IS WELL QUALIFIED and HE WANTS TO SERVE.This is the criteria which should be used to evaluate a candidate. Our Assembly seat should not be “given” to someone who is not qualified and doesn’t seem to want to serve.In a local primary race, the turnout is likely to be small. I live and work in this district, and my sense is this election will be very close. EVERY vote will count!!! If you have any questions about this letter, or about Joe Fox’s candidacy, please call me at the number above, or on my cell phone 718-216-5663. Please vote in this important election.
Sincerely,
Barry Seidel
Next Tuesday, September 14th, there is a primary. In many ways, it’s not an exciting Democratic primary, as the Governor’s nomination is uncontested and the Attorney General race has a non-descript field of five. However, for those of us in the 28th Assembly District, this may be the most important Democratic primary in many years. That is because my good friend Joe Fox has taken a courageous action by challenging the incumbent, Andrew Hevesi. I have never been involved in a local political campaign before, but I am strongly supporting Joe Fox in this primary. For the reasons stated below, I am asking you to support Joe as well.
Approximately five years ago, our Assemblyman Michael Cohen abruptly resigned, under mysterious circumstances. Shortly thereafter, it was announced that 31 year old Andrew Hevesi would be nominated for the seat, and would be on the ballot in a “special election”. This was an orchestrated political maneuver, which essentially gave our Assembly seat to an inexperienced paralegal, whose only “qualifications” for the job were being the son of criminally convicted political figure Alan Hevesi.
Andrew Hevesi has never had to actually RUN for his seat. He was re-elected in exactly the same way he initially came to his office, being put on the ballot without challenge. Up until this year, nobody has had the courage or the support or the qualifications to contest the “powers that be” for this seat.Had Andrew Hevesi taken this seat and actually done something useful with it, I would support him, notwithstanding the undemocratic way he obtained the seat. But the fact is, he has done NOTHING with this opportunity, other than continue to be part of the problem in Albany. We have a disgraceful State legislature, which perpetuates every bad aspect of cronyism and corrupt politics. Our Assemblyman has not taken a leadership position on ANY meaningful issue or legislation during his five years in office. He speaks through “spokespeople”, and takes his lead from the “higher ups” on every important issue.
If my interest were strictly “anti-incumbent, I would not be writing. I want to place this primary in a positive light, by telling you about Joe Fox…………..I know Joe personally for over 30 years. He is a successful attorney in private practice, concentrating primarily in real estate, business transactions and bankruptcy law. He knows what it means to start and grow a business, and he knows what it means to help businesses and individuals who have REAL problems. He is down to earth, approachable, and effective in everything he does…………He is a homeowner in Forest Hills, and with his wife Helaine has raised two great children who are in their early twenties. He knows about the issues facing our schools, about the costs of higher education and its impact on families, and about employment issues facing our community………….He has been active in MANY local community issues, and it was never with an eye on politics, it was always because he wanted to use his skills to HELP…………He is not a political neophyte, as he was involved in economic development during the Koch administration. He left the political arena at that time, to pursue private law practice.
To say that he is NOT a professional politician is actually high praise, and at the same time, he is not some kid who is going to take marching orders from others. He will look out for US, first and foremost. He has decided that NOW is the time for him to give back, and to return to the political arena, precisely because he has something worthwhile to offer. HE IS WELL QUALIFIED and HE WANTS TO SERVE.This is the criteria which should be used to evaluate a candidate. Our Assembly seat should not be “given” to someone who is not qualified and doesn’t seem to want to serve.In a local primary race, the turnout is likely to be small. I live and work in this district, and my sense is this election will be very close. EVERY vote will count!!! If you have any questions about this letter, or about Joe Fox’s candidacy, please call me at the number above, or on my cell phone 718-216-5663. Please vote in this important election.
Sincerely,
Barry Seidel
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Running a Scenario
I don't want to make predictions. After all, if I'm wrong, there it is with my name and the date of my wrongness. Not that so many people are reading, but I confess, I read it, and it would bother me to read a wrong prediction.
So, instead of making a prediction, I will "run a scenario". That way, if I'm wrong, I won't have made a wrong prediction. If my scenario runs true, I won't say I made a correct prediction, but I will know I did.
Here goes......
A health care reform bill will NOT be passed.
It will be the first humbling defeat for President Obama. He will handle it with dignity.
As a result of this defeat, despite his valiant efforts to DO SOMETHING, his stature and credibility will rise.
He will then undertake the next big social issue of our day.....IMMIGRATION.
As emotional as immigration reform is, it is much simpler than health care reform.
It has the potential for bi-partisanship, negotiation, and results that are predicable, measurable, and understandable.
Congress will pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill in 2010, and President Obama will sign it.
Right leaning Republicans will rail against this new law, and make it the cornerstone of their effort to take back the White House.
President Obama will be re-elected in a landslide, largely because of his handling of immigration reform in the aftermath of his defeat on health care reform.
Many will speculate as to why Obama chose to tackle health care before immigration. Ultimately this decision, whether by design or not, will be credited as one of the most brilliant moves in American political history.
If this all turns out to be wrong....hey, it was just a scenario.
Somehow, though, I do think this is how it's going to play out.
Your scenarios are welcome.
So, instead of making a prediction, I will "run a scenario". That way, if I'm wrong, I won't have made a wrong prediction. If my scenario runs true, I won't say I made a correct prediction, but I will know I did.
Here goes......
A health care reform bill will NOT be passed.
It will be the first humbling defeat for President Obama. He will handle it with dignity.
As a result of this defeat, despite his valiant efforts to DO SOMETHING, his stature and credibility will rise.
He will then undertake the next big social issue of our day.....IMMIGRATION.
As emotional as immigration reform is, it is much simpler than health care reform.
It has the potential for bi-partisanship, negotiation, and results that are predicable, measurable, and understandable.
Congress will pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill in 2010, and President Obama will sign it.
Right leaning Republicans will rail against this new law, and make it the cornerstone of their effort to take back the White House.
President Obama will be re-elected in a landslide, largely because of his handling of immigration reform in the aftermath of his defeat on health care reform.
Many will speculate as to why Obama chose to tackle health care before immigration. Ultimately this decision, whether by design or not, will be credited as one of the most brilliant moves in American political history.
If this all turns out to be wrong....hey, it was just a scenario.
Somehow, though, I do think this is how it's going to play out.
Your scenarios are welcome.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
What About This "Public Option"
Two posts ago (Paradoxes in the Health Care Debate), a reader posted a thoughtful comment, which included the following:
"As a lawyer, Barry, would you want to see the government subsidizing other lawyers in your area of specialty? Sure, you can compete with other private lawyers, but can you compete with lawyers being subsidized by the government? The government could lower their rates to zero if it so desires, which you cannot do."
This got me thinking.....the government DOES subsidize lawyers in the criminal law field. The government pays for lawyers for indigent defendants. This takes the form of legal aid, and in New York there is also an "18-B" panel, which represents criminal defendants when a conflict of interest prevents legal aid from representing a defendant. This subsidized lawyering directly competes with private criminal attorneys. Criminal law is not my specialty, but I know plenty of lawyers who do this work, and I have never heard a complaint about "competing with a government subsidized program". Let's look at a few reasons, and see if there are analogies to health care:
1. Some private criminal lawyers, but not all, are on the court appointed panel. They do this to subsidize their income, and because it is also a source for future "private" cases. Many criminal law attorneys derive a serious portion of their income from participating in the court appointed panels, and are PAID by this "government subsidized" program.
1(a) I suspect that many, but not all, doctors in private practice will choose to accept payment from the government option health plan. (They may be required to accept it, which seems right to me too). Will that plan be paying much less than the private insurance plans? I see how little my private insurer (GHI) pays my doctors under the present system. Sometimes it's embarrassing. I maintain that the public option will be a bonanza for many doctors in private practice, and for hospitals.
2. Some clients who would be eligible for legal aid or a court appointed lawyer ELECT to retain a private attorney. There are many reasons they may do this, but the obvious ones are better service, higher skill level, personal attention, and what may be at stake (their liberty). Clients pay extra for this if they (or their family) choose to, and they generally get value for their money.
2(a) I suspect that many, but not all, patients and health insurance buyers will ELECT to pay a premium to stay out of the public option and will pay for private insurance. There will be factors determining how many do this, but the main factors will be "how competitive is the price" and "how much better is the service". It will be all about competition, and the private insurers will be quite able to compete. It's just that as it presently stands, they'd prefer not to.
3. Even in the non-criminal areas of practice, there are times when lawyers compete with subsidized programs, and clients who can obtain legal services for zero cost. There are civil matters where clients can get legal services without paying, or by representing themselves. Housing Court is an example of this. People can pay a private attorney, but many either "can't afford it" or elect not to pay a private attorney. I don't have a problem with this. Legal clients have an option medical patients don't have, they can represent themselves, and some do.
3(a) Doctors already have "competition" from a subsidized source......the emergency rooms that do not turn people away. Who pays for these services? Some patients are on Medicare and Medicaid, some pay the hospital, some stiff the hospital. Where the ultimate cost falls is a big shell game, but if I had to guess at the biggest reason private health insurance is so expensive, its that the hospitals make up the difference on all the "stiffage" by banging the private insurance, who simply bangs it back to its customers. Like I said, a big shell game.
3(b) People without health insurance, and who are not old enough for Medicare, or poor enough for Medicaid, are different than poor legal clients in one important way. They can't be their own doctor. Instead, they either delay care, or go without it, or they face financial ruin when an emergency happens. All because of a shell game. A zero-sum gain shell game designed to benefit those presently running the game.
The "public option" makes for a fairer shell game.
"As a lawyer, Barry, would you want to see the government subsidizing other lawyers in your area of specialty? Sure, you can compete with other private lawyers, but can you compete with lawyers being subsidized by the government? The government could lower their rates to zero if it so desires, which you cannot do."
This got me thinking.....the government DOES subsidize lawyers in the criminal law field. The government pays for lawyers for indigent defendants. This takes the form of legal aid, and in New York there is also an "18-B" panel, which represents criminal defendants when a conflict of interest prevents legal aid from representing a defendant. This subsidized lawyering directly competes with private criminal attorneys. Criminal law is not my specialty, but I know plenty of lawyers who do this work, and I have never heard a complaint about "competing with a government subsidized program". Let's look at a few reasons, and see if there are analogies to health care:
1. Some private criminal lawyers, but not all, are on the court appointed panel. They do this to subsidize their income, and because it is also a source for future "private" cases. Many criminal law attorneys derive a serious portion of their income from participating in the court appointed panels, and are PAID by this "government subsidized" program.
1(a) I suspect that many, but not all, doctors in private practice will choose to accept payment from the government option health plan. (They may be required to accept it, which seems right to me too). Will that plan be paying much less than the private insurance plans? I see how little my private insurer (GHI) pays my doctors under the present system. Sometimes it's embarrassing. I maintain that the public option will be a bonanza for many doctors in private practice, and for hospitals.
2. Some clients who would be eligible for legal aid or a court appointed lawyer ELECT to retain a private attorney. There are many reasons they may do this, but the obvious ones are better service, higher skill level, personal attention, and what may be at stake (their liberty). Clients pay extra for this if they (or their family) choose to, and they generally get value for their money.
2(a) I suspect that many, but not all, patients and health insurance buyers will ELECT to pay a premium to stay out of the public option and will pay for private insurance. There will be factors determining how many do this, but the main factors will be "how competitive is the price" and "how much better is the service". It will be all about competition, and the private insurers will be quite able to compete. It's just that as it presently stands, they'd prefer not to.
3. Even in the non-criminal areas of practice, there are times when lawyers compete with subsidized programs, and clients who can obtain legal services for zero cost. There are civil matters where clients can get legal services without paying, or by representing themselves. Housing Court is an example of this. People can pay a private attorney, but many either "can't afford it" or elect not to pay a private attorney. I don't have a problem with this. Legal clients have an option medical patients don't have, they can represent themselves, and some do.
3(a) Doctors already have "competition" from a subsidized source......the emergency rooms that do not turn people away. Who pays for these services? Some patients are on Medicare and Medicaid, some pay the hospital, some stiff the hospital. Where the ultimate cost falls is a big shell game, but if I had to guess at the biggest reason private health insurance is so expensive, its that the hospitals make up the difference on all the "stiffage" by banging the private insurance, who simply bangs it back to its customers. Like I said, a big shell game.
3(b) People without health insurance, and who are not old enough for Medicare, or poor enough for Medicaid, are different than poor legal clients in one important way. They can't be their own doctor. Instead, they either delay care, or go without it, or they face financial ruin when an emergency happens. All because of a shell game. A zero-sum gain shell game designed to benefit those presently running the game.
The "public option" makes for a fairer shell game.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Y'all Asked For It
Why is this all happening?
Why is there going to be massive health care "reform" and a big old new immigration extravaganza behind it?
The Republicans have wielded power or "veto power" in either Congress or the White House since 1980. Their political mantra has been, and still is "the best government is that which does least". They have sold the message so well that in actuality, they caused the government to do NOTHING.
They did nothing, and would still prefer to do NOTHING about our disgraceful health care system. I don't love every aspect of the current proposals, but I despise the notion that a responsible government would do NOTHING, with costs spiraling out of control and a significant percentage of our citizens lacking basic health coverage. What was the Republican plan to address these issues? The plan was to do NOTHING, and the plan was executed.
It's still the plan, and it may still work. Now that change is at hand, the entire propaganda machine is mobilized to stop the change. Never, EVER is there an actual workable counter-proposal, which reveals the basic problem......the view that the government should do NOTHING, and somehow let things get worked out in some "Darwinian (or creator-oriented)" way.
NOTHING was a bad and evil strategy. And now, the Republicans have probably lost their ability to negotiate and improve the details. It's a ramrod job.
Y'all asked for it.
Tomorrow - Y'all REALLY asked for it on immigration, and you're going to get it.
Why is there going to be massive health care "reform" and a big old new immigration extravaganza behind it?
The Republicans have wielded power or "veto power" in either Congress or the White House since 1980. Their political mantra has been, and still is "the best government is that which does least". They have sold the message so well that in actuality, they caused the government to do NOTHING.
They did nothing, and would still prefer to do NOTHING about our disgraceful health care system. I don't love every aspect of the current proposals, but I despise the notion that a responsible government would do NOTHING, with costs spiraling out of control and a significant percentage of our citizens lacking basic health coverage. What was the Republican plan to address these issues? The plan was to do NOTHING, and the plan was executed.
It's still the plan, and it may still work. Now that change is at hand, the entire propaganda machine is mobilized to stop the change. Never, EVER is there an actual workable counter-proposal, which reveals the basic problem......the view that the government should do NOTHING, and somehow let things get worked out in some "Darwinian (or creator-oriented)" way.
NOTHING was a bad and evil strategy. And now, the Republicans have probably lost their ability to negotiate and improve the details. It's a ramrod job.
Y'all asked for it.
Tomorrow - Y'all REALLY asked for it on immigration, and you're going to get it.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Paradoxes in the Health Care Debate
Wow, this stuff is complicated.
Some people told me that I've made some good points about certain issues in the health care debate, but they "don't know where I stand". I apologize for not yet deciding which slogan to latch onto, and for not yet being on auto-answer. I'll leave that to "Democrats" and "Republicans", who have decided they must condescend to all of us by taking thinking, reasoning and logic out of the discussion. Can't say that I blame them.....we make American Idol a top rated show, we buy Disney products, we allow hip-hop to be called culture, and we act like drinking diet soda is a healthy choice. If I were elected, I'd keep the debate to slogans too.
Fortunately, I didn't run, and if I did, I couldn't win. I can't do slogans. I'd rather look at the slogans, and use them as a basis for something unintended.....thinking and discussion. Here are a few:
"If health care reform is passed, a bunch of bureaucrats will be coming between me and my doctor about MY healthcare" ----- To anyone who says or thinks this, I ask the following:
Are the people at insurance companies who reject and reduce medical claims not "bureaucrats"? Are they better...somehow? Lemme see if I understand this....someone whose job it is to reject your claim so their company can maintain profits is better for you than someone who works for the government?
"We have the best medical care in the world" ------- Yes, if you have insurance. (Actually, I don't know if we have the best medical care; I'm as ethno-centric as the next person.....and truthfully, we don't seem like a particularly healthy country). I've heard the argument that even people without insurance still get treated, but the inequities in our current system are stark, and shameful.
"We want to improve the current system, but we do not need a drastic overhaul" ----- This one really gets me. The current system was and is spinning wildly out of control....anyone who is paying their own way for health insurance KNOWS this. This has been going on for years. Eight years Bush was President, and he had a Congress too, and they did not even sniff at this issue. Now a little tweaking won't do it. Now an attempt is being made to make it fair. It's worth the effort.
"Illegal immigrants should not be covered" ------ I actually agree with this one, but I have no problem with taking every undocumented person who is here working, giving them status, and making them work ON THE BOOKS, and paying to be in the health care system. If having them all in the system and paying brings the cost of health insurance down, I vote "aye".
"It will lead to socialized medicine" ------- I know a lot of doctors. None of them are socialists. Most of them are capitalists, and appreciate being among the best paid professionals in our society. Most people do not begrudge them this. Mandated health insurance will be the biggest boon to medical business in the history of business. That's why you don't hear many doctors speaking out against this, except a few insurance company whores. If you were in a business, and there were tens of millions of customers who needed your products and services, but couldn't really afford it so they held off buying it, and now it would be law that everyone would be able to pay for your products and services, would you like that law? Multiple choice question....... If you were a doctor in a small practice, how would you feel about universal insurance?
(a) You'd be sporting a woodie.
(b) You'd be creaming your jeans.
(c) You'd be humming the "Anticipation" song.
(d) All of the above.
"It's part of a master plan by Obama (and the Dems) to turn the country socialist" ------Note to people who say this....paranoia is not attractive.
"The public option will drive the insurance companies out of business" ------- Are they really going to just roll over and let that happen? Nah, what they will have to do is COMPETE, which I thought was the American way. Oh, is it "not fair" to have to compete with the government? If you give good service and fair prices, and people HAVE TO buy insurance, a private company should be able to kick the governments butt and get huge new business. Have the insurance companies gotten so fat that they can't compete? (How utterly American of them) Can anybody show me where they are competing with each other now? Are they competing on price? On service? Never and nowhere.
No, they will NOT go out of business....they will compete, and the strongest will survive. As it should be.
I'm getting closer to knowing whre I stand.
Can't wait to see what the Senate does.
Some people told me that I've made some good points about certain issues in the health care debate, but they "don't know where I stand". I apologize for not yet deciding which slogan to latch onto, and for not yet being on auto-answer. I'll leave that to "Democrats" and "Republicans", who have decided they must condescend to all of us by taking thinking, reasoning and logic out of the discussion. Can't say that I blame them.....we make American Idol a top rated show, we buy Disney products, we allow hip-hop to be called culture, and we act like drinking diet soda is a healthy choice. If I were elected, I'd keep the debate to slogans too.
Fortunately, I didn't run, and if I did, I couldn't win. I can't do slogans. I'd rather look at the slogans, and use them as a basis for something unintended.....thinking and discussion. Here are a few:
"If health care reform is passed, a bunch of bureaucrats will be coming between me and my doctor about MY healthcare" ----- To anyone who says or thinks this, I ask the following:
Are the people at insurance companies who reject and reduce medical claims not "bureaucrats"? Are they better...somehow? Lemme see if I understand this....someone whose job it is to reject your claim so their company can maintain profits is better for you than someone who works for the government?
"We have the best medical care in the world" ------- Yes, if you have insurance. (Actually, I don't know if we have the best medical care; I'm as ethno-centric as the next person.....and truthfully, we don't seem like a particularly healthy country). I've heard the argument that even people without insurance still get treated, but the inequities in our current system are stark, and shameful.
"We want to improve the current system, but we do not need a drastic overhaul" ----- This one really gets me. The current system was and is spinning wildly out of control....anyone who is paying their own way for health insurance KNOWS this. This has been going on for years. Eight years Bush was President, and he had a Congress too, and they did not even sniff at this issue. Now a little tweaking won't do it. Now an attempt is being made to make it fair. It's worth the effort.
"Illegal immigrants should not be covered" ------ I actually agree with this one, but I have no problem with taking every undocumented person who is here working, giving them status, and making them work ON THE BOOKS, and paying to be in the health care system. If having them all in the system and paying brings the cost of health insurance down, I vote "aye".
"It will lead to socialized medicine" ------- I know a lot of doctors. None of them are socialists. Most of them are capitalists, and appreciate being among the best paid professionals in our society. Most people do not begrudge them this. Mandated health insurance will be the biggest boon to medical business in the history of business. That's why you don't hear many doctors speaking out against this, except a few insurance company whores. If you were in a business, and there were tens of millions of customers who needed your products and services, but couldn't really afford it so they held off buying it, and now it would be law that everyone would be able to pay for your products and services, would you like that law? Multiple choice question....... If you were a doctor in a small practice, how would you feel about universal insurance?
(a) You'd be sporting a woodie.
(b) You'd be creaming your jeans.
(c) You'd be humming the "Anticipation" song.
(d) All of the above.
"It's part of a master plan by Obama (and the Dems) to turn the country socialist" ------Note to people who say this....paranoia is not attractive.
"The public option will drive the insurance companies out of business" ------- Are they really going to just roll over and let that happen? Nah, what they will have to do is COMPETE, which I thought was the American way. Oh, is it "not fair" to have to compete with the government? If you give good service and fair prices, and people HAVE TO buy insurance, a private company should be able to kick the governments butt and get huge new business. Have the insurance companies gotten so fat that they can't compete? (How utterly American of them) Can anybody show me where they are competing with each other now? Are they competing on price? On service? Never and nowhere.
No, they will NOT go out of business....they will compete, and the strongest will survive. As it should be.
I'm getting closer to knowing whre I stand.
Can't wait to see what the Senate does.
Monday, October 12, 2009
If The Analogy Fits.....
The people who are most vocal about the need for universal health insurance are those who don't have it. Generally they say they don't have it because they "can't afford it". Lots of people buy things they can't afford, and opt not to buy other things they probably could, but bottom line, it's a DECISION. I'm not saying it's an easy decision, but like many financial decisions, it involves allocating your resources and making judgments.
I recently heard a radio talk show caller say she worked two nursing jobs, made pretty good money, but did not have health insurance because it cost $500 a month. She was imploring the President and Congress to "do something". I wanted to say (well actually, I DID say....to myself, while driving) "Uh, you do know that President Obama is talking about making health insurance MANDATORY, right?" This little tidbit is often lost in the discussion, or tossed in with phrases like "if you can't afford it, we'll help you".
I think a lot of people are in for a big surprise. Breathe easy, you're gonna get health insurance, but YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.....BY LAW!!!!
Can the government do that? Make you pay for something that has always been optional?
The closest analogy is motorcycle helmet laws. If you live in a State that has mandatory motorcycle helmet laws, it seems like a no-brainer (ouch, bad play on words). Everyone accepts it, you kind of understand that the government is making a law requiring people to protect themselves, and also not make us all responsible for their stupidity. If you live in a mandatory motorcycle helmet law State, you may not realize that such laws are NOT universal. Check out this map http://www.fastfreds.com/helmetlawmap.htm I love the comment on the bottom "When I Ride I Decide... Not the State or the Safety Nannies". Yes, there are people who think this way. People who believe in an individuals right to decide things for themselves. This is very often a Republican trait, and the little map looks like Bush v Kerry or Bush v Gore.
Now we have some irony. The Federal government is going to tell a lot of people they must carry health insurance. And they must pay for it, month after month. I think in other contexts this is called "a TAX". Most middle class people, most Democrats, are fine with taxes on "corporations" and "rich people", but taxes on themselves are harder to swallow. I can't wait for them to start asserting their right to make their own decisions about health insurance.
I know that a logical response to this will be...."Well, if people can't afford it, and the government helps out, then it will end up with employers paying, which is also a tax....the pernicious sort of tax that cripples businesses and job creation". I don't think this can be pawned off on small businesses, the stretched backbone of our economy. I don't think so because businesses make decisions too, and if this becomes the playing field, if it becomes OUR TAX....we're not hiring.
What about the "public option"? I think when most people hear this, they assume this is "the free public coverage that I can opt for". I don't think so. I think it would be something affordable.....that you will be REQUIRED to pay for. Still like it? Getting DMV-like service and having to pay for it? It may end up being a big boon to private health insurers because once people accept having to pay, they will probably splurge for the better service of private insurance.
All this health insurance stuff is all about getting more paying customers. That's always what insurance is about. All the low risk people (ie - young and healthy people) are making a decision to stay out of the system. Now the government is going to make their decision, you are IN because we all need you in....to spread the risk around and make it affordable for everyone.
Damn it, we need more customers. And that is the 800 pound gorilla my friends, the 15 million hard working participants in our economy who do not have legal status, and desperately want it. The ones who are going to ultimately get legalized, and can then participate in our mandatory, you pay for it, health insurance system. They can all make a decision, stay and pay, or leave. They'll stay, and this is what will ultimately make the entire system work. Obama and the Democrats in Congress are surely onto this.
You can write it down.
I recently heard a radio talk show caller say she worked two nursing jobs, made pretty good money, but did not have health insurance because it cost $500 a month. She was imploring the President and Congress to "do something". I wanted to say (well actually, I DID say....to myself, while driving) "Uh, you do know that President Obama is talking about making health insurance MANDATORY, right?" This little tidbit is often lost in the discussion, or tossed in with phrases like "if you can't afford it, we'll help you".
I think a lot of people are in for a big surprise. Breathe easy, you're gonna get health insurance, but YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.....BY LAW!!!!
Can the government do that? Make you pay for something that has always been optional?
The closest analogy is motorcycle helmet laws. If you live in a State that has mandatory motorcycle helmet laws, it seems like a no-brainer (ouch, bad play on words). Everyone accepts it, you kind of understand that the government is making a law requiring people to protect themselves, and also not make us all responsible for their stupidity. If you live in a mandatory motorcycle helmet law State, you may not realize that such laws are NOT universal. Check out this map http://www.fastfreds.com/helmetlawmap.htm I love the comment on the bottom "When I Ride I Decide... Not the State or the Safety Nannies". Yes, there are people who think this way. People who believe in an individuals right to decide things for themselves. This is very often a Republican trait, and the little map looks like Bush v Kerry or Bush v Gore.
Now we have some irony. The Federal government is going to tell a lot of people they must carry health insurance. And they must pay for it, month after month. I think in other contexts this is called "a TAX". Most middle class people, most Democrats, are fine with taxes on "corporations" and "rich people", but taxes on themselves are harder to swallow. I can't wait for them to start asserting their right to make their own decisions about health insurance.
I know that a logical response to this will be...."Well, if people can't afford it, and the government helps out, then it will end up with employers paying, which is also a tax....the pernicious sort of tax that cripples businesses and job creation". I don't think this can be pawned off on small businesses, the stretched backbone of our economy. I don't think so because businesses make decisions too, and if this becomes the playing field, if it becomes OUR TAX....we're not hiring.
What about the "public option"? I think when most people hear this, they assume this is "the free public coverage that I can opt for". I don't think so. I think it would be something affordable.....that you will be REQUIRED to pay for. Still like it? Getting DMV-like service and having to pay for it? It may end up being a big boon to private health insurers because once people accept having to pay, they will probably splurge for the better service of private insurance.
All this health insurance stuff is all about getting more paying customers. That's always what insurance is about. All the low risk people (ie - young and healthy people) are making a decision to stay out of the system. Now the government is going to make their decision, you are IN because we all need you in....to spread the risk around and make it affordable for everyone.
Damn it, we need more customers. And that is the 800 pound gorilla my friends, the 15 million hard working participants in our economy who do not have legal status, and desperately want it. The ones who are going to ultimately get legalized, and can then participate in our mandatory, you pay for it, health insurance system. They can all make a decision, stay and pay, or leave. They'll stay, and this is what will ultimately make the entire system work. Obama and the Democrats in Congress are surely onto this.
You can write it down.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
The Part Obama (and a lot of other people) Don't Get
Dear President Obama (and a lot of other people):
Ultimately, entrepreneurs drive the economy, not the government.
People who run businesses and employ other people know this. Most people who work for other people don't get this. President Obama works for the government, and as far as I can tell has always worked for others. So has Michelle. They don't get this entrepreneur thing. Neither do 89% of Congressmen (Yeah, I made up the stat, but it's probably right).
Being an employER is way different than "working".
I don't have a "job", I run a business. I don't HAVE a job, I CREATE JOBS. I haven't just created my own little job, I created three full time jobs, plus I contract out meaningful legal work to four other lawyers, plus my little law office puts tens of thousands into the economy in numerous ways. I figure I've created enough business activity to feed eight families.
If I come up with good ideas, if I market well, if I am bold enough, I will create more jobs. I am motivated to do this by several things.....I want to make more money, I want to provide useful services, I want to be known, I want to be remembered, I want to be part of our economy.
I KNOW, as all business owners know, that I will create more jobs, and help the economy, in the long term, WAY more than any stimulus package or clunker program EVER will.
You would think the President would know this.
You would think Congress would know this.
You would think the voters would know this.
You would think people who work know this (some do, but not most)
You would think State and elected officials would know this. (The only one I can think of who seems to realize this is Mayor Bloomberg....an entrepreneur)
You would be wrong.
Hey, I want the health care system reformed and improved. After all, my premiums are now going up to $1880 per month. That's right, my working friends, I PAY that every f***ing month! It's not one of my "job benefits", I PAY for it. As do most businesspeople, IF they can still afford it. Right now, I don't pay for health insurance for my employees, who seem to have it "through someone else". Crazy, but true, and quite common.
I hope I can create more jobs, and help knock down the unemployment rate. I hope hundreds of thousands of small and medium size business owners can do the same thing. I hope we can afford to make business ventures, try new ideas, be vibrant, make the working world exciting and wealth producing. I HOPE WE DO NOT BECOME A NATION OF CIVIL SERVANTS.
How many jobs can "stimuli" stimulate?
Are we in a good environment for new businesses to start? I used to wonder why more people who were laid off didn't TRY to start businesses. But I now realize why. You'd have to be crazy (or at least illogical) to try, when the taxes and health insurance obstacles are insurmountable.
Are we in a good environment for businesses to grow? Uh, thinking that "universal health insurance" will likely mean a mandate that employers cover all, or that universal coverage will increase taxes even further, makes me pause. Entrepreneurs across the country are collectively paused, and will stay that way, and will prevent the unemployment rates from coming down.
Maybe I will make the logical decision to "get a job", and make things safer and easier for myself and my family. I'd probably be a great employee, and I suspect a firm would hire me. Former entrepreneurs usually make great employees. Something about "getting it" comes into play.
If I decided to "get a job", I guess the eight families I feed will have to find another way. I guess if entrepreneurs and employers across the country make this logical move, unemployment will go up even more, and the government will eventually employ most people. Maybe we ARE destined to be a nation of civil servants.
Businesses are where real solutions come from. We need the government to help the Country by letting us do what we do, create real jobs and build a strong, competitive economy. Mr. President (and a lot of other people), you don't get it, and it's going to kill us all.
Sincerely,
Barry Seidel
(proud capitalist)
Ultimately, entrepreneurs drive the economy, not the government.
People who run businesses and employ other people know this. Most people who work for other people don't get this. President Obama works for the government, and as far as I can tell has always worked for others. So has Michelle. They don't get this entrepreneur thing. Neither do 89% of Congressmen (Yeah, I made up the stat, but it's probably right).
Being an employER is way different than "working".
I don't have a "job", I run a business. I don't HAVE a job, I CREATE JOBS. I haven't just created my own little job, I created three full time jobs, plus I contract out meaningful legal work to four other lawyers, plus my little law office puts tens of thousands into the economy in numerous ways. I figure I've created enough business activity to feed eight families.
If I come up with good ideas, if I market well, if I am bold enough, I will create more jobs. I am motivated to do this by several things.....I want to make more money, I want to provide useful services, I want to be known, I want to be remembered, I want to be part of our economy.
I KNOW, as all business owners know, that I will create more jobs, and help the economy, in the long term, WAY more than any stimulus package or clunker program EVER will.
You would think the President would know this.
You would think Congress would know this.
You would think the voters would know this.
You would think people who work know this (some do, but not most)
You would think State and elected officials would know this. (The only one I can think of who seems to realize this is Mayor Bloomberg....an entrepreneur)
You would be wrong.
Hey, I want the health care system reformed and improved. After all, my premiums are now going up to $1880 per month. That's right, my working friends, I PAY that every f***ing month! It's not one of my "job benefits", I PAY for it. As do most businesspeople, IF they can still afford it. Right now, I don't pay for health insurance for my employees, who seem to have it "through someone else". Crazy, but true, and quite common.
I hope I can create more jobs, and help knock down the unemployment rate. I hope hundreds of thousands of small and medium size business owners can do the same thing. I hope we can afford to make business ventures, try new ideas, be vibrant, make the working world exciting and wealth producing. I HOPE WE DO NOT BECOME A NATION OF CIVIL SERVANTS.
How many jobs can "stimuli" stimulate?
Are we in a good environment for new businesses to start? I used to wonder why more people who were laid off didn't TRY to start businesses. But I now realize why. You'd have to be crazy (or at least illogical) to try, when the taxes and health insurance obstacles are insurmountable.
Are we in a good environment for businesses to grow? Uh, thinking that "universal health insurance" will likely mean a mandate that employers cover all, or that universal coverage will increase taxes even further, makes me pause. Entrepreneurs across the country are collectively paused, and will stay that way, and will prevent the unemployment rates from coming down.
Maybe I will make the logical decision to "get a job", and make things safer and easier for myself and my family. I'd probably be a great employee, and I suspect a firm would hire me. Former entrepreneurs usually make great employees. Something about "getting it" comes into play.
If I decided to "get a job", I guess the eight families I feed will have to find another way. I guess if entrepreneurs and employers across the country make this logical move, unemployment will go up even more, and the government will eventually employ most people. Maybe we ARE destined to be a nation of civil servants.
Businesses are where real solutions come from. We need the government to help the Country by letting us do what we do, create real jobs and build a strong, competitive economy. Mr. President (and a lot of other people), you don't get it, and it's going to kill us all.
Sincerely,
Barry Seidel
(proud capitalist)
Monday, September 21, 2009
Observations About Health Care Reform
The difficulty with reforming our health care system is that the whole situation is WAY too complicated. It does not fit into our shared cultural desire for a few slogans and buzzwords to sort everything out. Everything is so inter-related that it makes for bad politics. In an effort to untangle some of the confusion, I will offer a few observations:
1. Anybody who doesn't think there is a BIG problem with our current system is surely not paying for their own health insurance. As a businessman who pays for my own family plan (where I just got a notice that my premium is going up to $1880 per month!!), nothing irks me more than people with "jobs with benefits" who deny there is a problem, and claim "we have the greatest system in the world". It is especially galling when Republicans, who supposedly care about capitalism and entrepreneurship, are saying this.
2. In order for an insurance system to work, it needs a large enough pool so that risks can be spread, and prices can be fairly set. I don't have a real problem with making health insurance "mandatory" for all, and I don't think it's any different from law requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets. Yes I know, some States don't require helmets, under the theory that "people have a right to be jerks and let the rest of us bear the risk of their medical bills". Health insurance is no different. It's pretty stupid not to have it, but many people choose not to, primarily because it's too damn expensive. Clearly, the costs have to be lower for all if everyone is required to be IN.
3. Which brings me to another point. Isn't is obvious that health care reform and immigration reform are inexorably related? When health insurance becomes mandatory, I want the 12 million newly legalized workers to be REQUIRED to pay for health insurance, or for their employers to pay for them. If this is too onerous, please leave. I am sick of paying for your health care. While I'm on the topic, I would also make "working off the books" and "paying people off the books" felonies. That's right. Not only do I want my health insurance costs lowered, I want my taxes lowered too, because I want everyone who should be paying, to PAY. Am I the only one who is ticked off about this???
4. I am amazed when people talk about "tort reform" in the context of health insurance. Yes, we could use some tort reform, but in the overall scheme of things, it's a pimple on the body of the problem. Maybe if there were universal health care, the doctors would be billing so much they could better afford their malpractice insurance premiums. Hey, wait a minute, another insurance issue at the heart of things. OK, let's fix too, this while we're at it
5. Does anybody truly think that under the present system the health insurance companies are competing with each other? Are they competing on price? Or service? Somebody show me where that happens.
6. Another good one....."If the government is involved, a bunch of bureaucrats will be making decisions about my health care". And who at the insurance companies is making those decisions now? And what standard are they using to make their determination?
7. I'm thinking that if millions more citizens have health insurance, this would be good for the doctoring and hospital business. Am I missing something? Oh, it will probably also be good for that other scourge of true health, the pharmaceutical industry.
8. I do fear that those who vocally support "universal health insurance" will be shocked when they find out they "have to pay for it"....at least to some extent. I don't think there can be any viable plan where the consumers are not paying some part of this. So, it really comes down to a TAX. To this I say, "fair is fair", and I think Obama has been tip-toeing around this issue. Fixing this mess will require EVERYONE to pay, another complication that doesn't generally go down too well.
9. The government is not some "otherly" entity. WE are the government. For this thing to get fixed, WE are going to be paying, one way or the other.
Sorry for ranting.
Sorry to my doctor friends.
Sorry to working people.
Sorry to people working off the books.
Sorry to people paying people to work off the books.
Sorry to Democrats.
Sorry to Republicans.
Sorry to tort reformers.
Sorry to say....I'm not really sorry about any of it. If everybody could just see that we are all in this together, we'd have a chance to make some progress.
1. Anybody who doesn't think there is a BIG problem with our current system is surely not paying for their own health insurance. As a businessman who pays for my own family plan (where I just got a notice that my premium is going up to $1880 per month!!), nothing irks me more than people with "jobs with benefits" who deny there is a problem, and claim "we have the greatest system in the world". It is especially galling when Republicans, who supposedly care about capitalism and entrepreneurship, are saying this.
2. In order for an insurance system to work, it needs a large enough pool so that risks can be spread, and prices can be fairly set. I don't have a real problem with making health insurance "mandatory" for all, and I don't think it's any different from law requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets. Yes I know, some States don't require helmets, under the theory that "people have a right to be jerks and let the rest of us bear the risk of their medical bills". Health insurance is no different. It's pretty stupid not to have it, but many people choose not to, primarily because it's too damn expensive. Clearly, the costs have to be lower for all if everyone is required to be IN.
3. Which brings me to another point. Isn't is obvious that health care reform and immigration reform are inexorably related? When health insurance becomes mandatory, I want the 12 million newly legalized workers to be REQUIRED to pay for health insurance, or for their employers to pay for them. If this is too onerous, please leave. I am sick of paying for your health care. While I'm on the topic, I would also make "working off the books" and "paying people off the books" felonies. That's right. Not only do I want my health insurance costs lowered, I want my taxes lowered too, because I want everyone who should be paying, to PAY. Am I the only one who is ticked off about this???
4. I am amazed when people talk about "tort reform" in the context of health insurance. Yes, we could use some tort reform, but in the overall scheme of things, it's a pimple on the body of the problem. Maybe if there were universal health care, the doctors would be billing so much they could better afford their malpractice insurance premiums. Hey, wait a minute, another insurance issue at the heart of things. OK, let's fix too, this while we're at it
5. Does anybody truly think that under the present system the health insurance companies are competing with each other? Are they competing on price? Or service? Somebody show me where that happens.
6. Another good one....."If the government is involved, a bunch of bureaucrats will be making decisions about my health care". And who at the insurance companies is making those decisions now? And what standard are they using to make their determination?
7. I'm thinking that if millions more citizens have health insurance, this would be good for the doctoring and hospital business. Am I missing something? Oh, it will probably also be good for that other scourge of true health, the pharmaceutical industry.
8. I do fear that those who vocally support "universal health insurance" will be shocked when they find out they "have to pay for it"....at least to some extent. I don't think there can be any viable plan where the consumers are not paying some part of this. So, it really comes down to a TAX. To this I say, "fair is fair", and I think Obama has been tip-toeing around this issue. Fixing this mess will require EVERYONE to pay, another complication that doesn't generally go down too well.
9. The government is not some "otherly" entity. WE are the government. For this thing to get fixed, WE are going to be paying, one way or the other.
Sorry for ranting.
Sorry to my doctor friends.
Sorry to working people.
Sorry to people working off the books.
Sorry to people paying people to work off the books.
Sorry to Democrats.
Sorry to Republicans.
Sorry to tort reformers.
Sorry to say....I'm not really sorry about any of it. If everybody could just see that we are all in this together, we'd have a chance to make some progress.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Thoughts on Affirmative Action
Sondra Sotomayor will be confirmed without much difficulty. The debate over her selection will cause dialogue about affirmative action. Touchy issue for many, but an issue worthy of debate. I don't view the President or Judge Sotomayor as beneficiaries of affirmative action (even though on some levels they may be), since they qualified for their accomplishments on their merits. If one takes as a given that they were not aided by affirmative action, isn't this a strong argument AGAINST it? Shouldn't merit and qualification ALWAYS be the top criteria for advancement?
Even if one accepts the concept of affirmative action, I DON'T want it ingrained in our society. In my view, any argument that it should be permanent is racist. It's saying that there will never be equality based on merit, that we need "equalizers". I don't accept this. I always want any affirmative action to have "sunset" provisions in mind. Essentially, the imperfect remedy should end when the circumstances necessitating the solution have been minimized. We've come a long way, probably in spite of this "race based" remedy.
True story......About 18 years ago, I had an African-American high school intern working in my law office. One day we had a discussion about affirmative action, and I expressed the opinion that I found some aspects of it troubling. She asked what I meant, and I said that while I understood the need to redress injustices and equalize opportunities, that fundamentally it was making race a "factor" when in fact Dr. King had expressed hope for a world where race was not a factor, and people were judged on merit. She asked me if I were AGAINST affirmative action. I said that actually I was not, but I wondered if she thought someone who was against affirmative action was likely a racist. She thought about this and said she thought they probably were. I thought this was true in some situations, but the more serious racism came from liberal white people who were the biggest advocates of affirmative action. She asked what I meant, and I said, "Let me run a scenario by you. If it were common knowledge that there were relaxed criteria for minorities to get into medical school, and a liberal white person became ill and went to an emergency room, would they wonder about the qualifications of the African-American doctor treating them?" She said, "Nobody would think that way.....would they???" Ah, sweet innocence of youth!
I had to give an honest answer.....Sadly, not only do I think it would be true, but the more liberal a person is, the more likely this would apply. Call me a racist against white liberals, but this is how I see it.
When it comes to admission to schools, and access to employment, I have no problem with valuing "diversity", however one defines it. There IS more to school, more to life, more to "success", than grades and test scores.
Quotas are racist, any way you cut it. Maintaining them should never be an objective.
Diversity IS often a worthwhile result. Achieving it without quotas is a dilemma worthy of our attention.
Even if one accepts the concept of affirmative action, I DON'T want it ingrained in our society. In my view, any argument that it should be permanent is racist. It's saying that there will never be equality based on merit, that we need "equalizers". I don't accept this. I always want any affirmative action to have "sunset" provisions in mind. Essentially, the imperfect remedy should end when the circumstances necessitating the solution have been minimized. We've come a long way, probably in spite of this "race based" remedy.
True story......About 18 years ago, I had an African-American high school intern working in my law office. One day we had a discussion about affirmative action, and I expressed the opinion that I found some aspects of it troubling. She asked what I meant, and I said that while I understood the need to redress injustices and equalize opportunities, that fundamentally it was making race a "factor" when in fact Dr. King had expressed hope for a world where race was not a factor, and people were judged on merit. She asked me if I were AGAINST affirmative action. I said that actually I was not, but I wondered if she thought someone who was against affirmative action was likely a racist. She thought about this and said she thought they probably were. I thought this was true in some situations, but the more serious racism came from liberal white people who were the biggest advocates of affirmative action. She asked what I meant, and I said, "Let me run a scenario by you. If it were common knowledge that there were relaxed criteria for minorities to get into medical school, and a liberal white person became ill and went to an emergency room, would they wonder about the qualifications of the African-American doctor treating them?" She said, "Nobody would think that way.....would they???" Ah, sweet innocence of youth!
I had to give an honest answer.....Sadly, not only do I think it would be true, but the more liberal a person is, the more likely this would apply. Call me a racist against white liberals, but this is how I see it.
When it comes to admission to schools, and access to employment, I have no problem with valuing "diversity", however one defines it. There IS more to school, more to life, more to "success", than grades and test scores.
Quotas are racist, any way you cut it. Maintaining them should never be an objective.
Diversity IS often a worthwhile result. Achieving it without quotas is a dilemma worthy of our attention.
Monday, March 30, 2009
More Thoughts on GM and Chapter 11
So, the government forces GM Chairman Wagoner to resign, ostensibly because they found GM's latest "plan" and loan requests unacceptable. What is REALLY going on here is the government knows that the only way GM can become viable is to file a Chapter 11, and Wagoner could not and would not do it. One might think that at SOME point, all the parties (unions, bondholders, banks, suppliers, management) would make sufficient concessions to prevent this bus from going over the cliff.
Unfortunately, it can't happen that way. A Chapter 11 reorganization will bring the hammer down on ALL the parties, painfully. However, the entire process is designed to do this as FAIRLY as possible, with all the parties participating. The reason a proceeding is necessary is that NONE of the parties can agree to the depth of concession necessary, even as it clearly IS necessary. A union head could not agree to a massive restructuring of health and retirement benefits, it's just not was he was elected to do. It's practically a breach of his fiduciary responsibility to do such a thing. Similarly, the Board Chairman can't propose to the shareholders that they agree to file a Chapter 11 and wipe out their equity. He'd be breaching his responsibilities if he did such a thing.
The Obama administration has looked at it, and has surely concluded that not only are the key players not able to voluntarily make the drastic cuts that are the only hope, they have also concluded that on the present path, the company CANNOT make it. Any Republicans who think Obama wants to "nationalize" the auto industry, or have the government take it over, are not paying attention. I don't know if GM will survive a Chapter 11 reorganization, but it will be worth the effort. It will be worthwhile for the government to back the effort. It will make way more sense than throwing money at GM without accountability, and without a REAL re-structuring.
Am I the only one who thinks that the "gap" between GM and the foreign competitors has narrowed? I wanted to be open minded and patriotic a few years ago, so I tried a Saturn Vue as our family car. I have never regretted it. When the lease is up, I hope to get another one. I want to be part of GM's emergence from the Chapter 11 I know is coming.
I think when the whole country actually sees how the Chapter 11 reorganization works, and they see that the pain is being spread fairly, and openly, Americans will buy American in droves. If GM survives, I expect they will emerge with a competitive edge, and they will use it to get on the cutting edge of the newest in automobile technology. These ideas are driving Obama toward the right move, orchestrating GM into Chapter 11 reorganization. Hmmm, competitive edge, capitalism, sounds almost Republican. Pay attention Republicans, you might learn something!
Unfortunately, it can't happen that way. A Chapter 11 reorganization will bring the hammer down on ALL the parties, painfully. However, the entire process is designed to do this as FAIRLY as possible, with all the parties participating. The reason a proceeding is necessary is that NONE of the parties can agree to the depth of concession necessary, even as it clearly IS necessary. A union head could not agree to a massive restructuring of health and retirement benefits, it's just not was he was elected to do. It's practically a breach of his fiduciary responsibility to do such a thing. Similarly, the Board Chairman can't propose to the shareholders that they agree to file a Chapter 11 and wipe out their equity. He'd be breaching his responsibilities if he did such a thing.
The Obama administration has looked at it, and has surely concluded that not only are the key players not able to voluntarily make the drastic cuts that are the only hope, they have also concluded that on the present path, the company CANNOT make it. Any Republicans who think Obama wants to "nationalize" the auto industry, or have the government take it over, are not paying attention. I don't know if GM will survive a Chapter 11 reorganization, but it will be worth the effort. It will be worthwhile for the government to back the effort. It will make way more sense than throwing money at GM without accountability, and without a REAL re-structuring.
Am I the only one who thinks that the "gap" between GM and the foreign competitors has narrowed? I wanted to be open minded and patriotic a few years ago, so I tried a Saturn Vue as our family car. I have never regretted it. When the lease is up, I hope to get another one. I want to be part of GM's emergence from the Chapter 11 I know is coming.
I think when the whole country actually sees how the Chapter 11 reorganization works, and they see that the pain is being spread fairly, and openly, Americans will buy American in droves. If GM survives, I expect they will emerge with a competitive edge, and they will use it to get on the cutting edge of the newest in automobile technology. These ideas are driving Obama toward the right move, orchestrating GM into Chapter 11 reorganization. Hmmm, competitive edge, capitalism, sounds almost Republican. Pay attention Republicans, you might learn something!
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
GM and Chapter 11
I want to get back to my "building a law practice" stuff, but this GM and Chapter 11 thing is really bugging me. I read today that the GM chairman strongly believes the company cannot go into a Chapter 11 because the public will not buy cars from a company in reorganization, and they will end up in liquidation.
Pardon my ignorance, but wtf is this guy talking about?
I don't need graphs and charts to see where GM is going as we speak.....on a straight line to liquidation. No bailout, no loan, no stimulus, no miracle is going to stop that. It's a competitive world, they are not competitive, they will go out of business. I've heard it said "they are too big to be allowed to fail". Isn't it obvious that they are "too big to succeed"? Being too big to succeed is the hallmark of un-competitiveness. They are weighted down with bad contracts, a bad dealer system, and product lines that have been behind the times and probably can't catch up. Certainly they can't catch up with all the excess baggage.
The brass at GM can keep referring to Chapter 11 as "bankruptcy", as if saying that will scare the country into endlessly bailing them out. Chapter 11 is NOT bankruptcy per-se, it is re-organization. If the reorganization does not work, THEN you go into liquidation (bankruptcy).
A Chapter 11 filing is a very powerful thing. It immediately stops the bleeding by putting a stay on your creditors. It compels the filing of a re-organization plan. It enables a company to renegotiate almost any problem on their agenda. Oh, and it enables the filing company to obtain fresh financing, as CHAPTER 11 FINANCING IS PREFERRED OVER ALL OTHER CREDITORS!!!! That's right, while a company is re-organizing, lenders who assist jump ahead of all other creditors, even secured creditors. The way the government should "bail out" GM is to either provide the Chapter 11 financing, or guarantee the financial institutions who will give the financing. Personally, I think this is what President Obama has had in mind all along.
I am struggling to understand why the GM leadership is so opposed to a Chapter 11 filing. I can understand why the unions are against it, the best parts of their contracts will be history, unprofitable plants will be closed (as they should be), and the company will be made leaner and more competitive. You would almost think that if it's so bad for the unions, management would embrace it. So why don't they?
Well, another party who takes a beating in a Chapter 11 is the stockholders. Hey, aren't most of the executives also big stockholders? How about executive jobs, and executive pay? Guess those would come under fire in a re-organization too. GM had some cash reserves that would have been nice to use as a cushion in a reorganization. But I guess it seemed better to deplete that, bleed the taxpayers of some useless bailout money, and then face the inevitable. Resisting the filing, and waiting until the company really should be in liquidation, may just doom the Chapter 11 to exactly what the executives claim they want to avoid.
Bankruptcy (reorganization or liquidation) are fascinating tactical cards, played in various ways at all levels of business. I've been involved in cases where the mere realistic brandishing of the bankruptcy sword totally changed a negotiation and settled an unresolvable situation.
The problem with GM is the brandishing and talk about a Chapter 11 hasn't convinced them to DO it. As is often true in bankruptcy cases, there has to be a catalyst, something that forces a companies hand. I can understand why President Obama did not force the filing in his first week in office. Had it been any other time, forcing a "pre-packaged" Chapter 11 was clearly the right way to go.
Watch for this......when they get to the brink, and it won't be long, President Obama will orchestrate GM into Chapter 11. It's the only way. Hopefully it's not too late for a reorganization to actually work.
Pardon my ignorance, but wtf is this guy talking about?
I don't need graphs and charts to see where GM is going as we speak.....on a straight line to liquidation. No bailout, no loan, no stimulus, no miracle is going to stop that. It's a competitive world, they are not competitive, they will go out of business. I've heard it said "they are too big to be allowed to fail". Isn't it obvious that they are "too big to succeed"? Being too big to succeed is the hallmark of un-competitiveness. They are weighted down with bad contracts, a bad dealer system, and product lines that have been behind the times and probably can't catch up. Certainly they can't catch up with all the excess baggage.
The brass at GM can keep referring to Chapter 11 as "bankruptcy", as if saying that will scare the country into endlessly bailing them out. Chapter 11 is NOT bankruptcy per-se, it is re-organization. If the reorganization does not work, THEN you go into liquidation (bankruptcy).
A Chapter 11 filing is a very powerful thing. It immediately stops the bleeding by putting a stay on your creditors. It compels the filing of a re-organization plan. It enables a company to renegotiate almost any problem on their agenda. Oh, and it enables the filing company to obtain fresh financing, as CHAPTER 11 FINANCING IS PREFERRED OVER ALL OTHER CREDITORS!!!! That's right, while a company is re-organizing, lenders who assist jump ahead of all other creditors, even secured creditors. The way the government should "bail out" GM is to either provide the Chapter 11 financing, or guarantee the financial institutions who will give the financing. Personally, I think this is what President Obama has had in mind all along.
I am struggling to understand why the GM leadership is so opposed to a Chapter 11 filing. I can understand why the unions are against it, the best parts of their contracts will be history, unprofitable plants will be closed (as they should be), and the company will be made leaner and more competitive. You would almost think that if it's so bad for the unions, management would embrace it. So why don't they?
Well, another party who takes a beating in a Chapter 11 is the stockholders. Hey, aren't most of the executives also big stockholders? How about executive jobs, and executive pay? Guess those would come under fire in a re-organization too. GM had some cash reserves that would have been nice to use as a cushion in a reorganization. But I guess it seemed better to deplete that, bleed the taxpayers of some useless bailout money, and then face the inevitable. Resisting the filing, and waiting until the company really should be in liquidation, may just doom the Chapter 11 to exactly what the executives claim they want to avoid.
Bankruptcy (reorganization or liquidation) are fascinating tactical cards, played in various ways at all levels of business. I've been involved in cases where the mere realistic brandishing of the bankruptcy sword totally changed a negotiation and settled an unresolvable situation.
The problem with GM is the brandishing and talk about a Chapter 11 hasn't convinced them to DO it. As is often true in bankruptcy cases, there has to be a catalyst, something that forces a companies hand. I can understand why President Obama did not force the filing in his first week in office. Had it been any other time, forcing a "pre-packaged" Chapter 11 was clearly the right way to go.
Watch for this......when they get to the brink, and it won't be long, President Obama will orchestrate GM into Chapter 11. It's the only way. Hopefully it's not too late for a reorganization to actually work.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
My Two Wacky Ideas
I would pontificate about GM and Chapter 11, but much smarter people are already doing that. My brief take on it......no way they are getting bailed out with this Congress and President, they should be forced into Chapter 11 with government financing on the reorganization. Resisting the bail out pressure will put President Obama to the test.
Sometimes it seems like the whole economy should file for Chapter 11.
Things have gotten so complicated that I am reluctant to contact President-Elect Obama about my two BIG ideas. These are things I have been thinking about for a few years. Maybe I am not the only one who has thought of these things, but for once, I have not googled them because I want to feel like I thought of them. I want to develop them. I want these ideas to be put into action because I know they will work, despite their apparent oddness. I might even let some think-tanks tinker with them, maybe perfect some of the fine points. There may be some possible flaws in these ideas, but I can assure you, they are misguided and can be addressed to the satisfaction of any clear thinking person.
OK....here are the two ideas.....................
1. A cashless economy. I am proposing that we eliminate all cash money except one dollar bills and quarters. All transactions, and I mean ALL transactions, should be on credit/debit cards. I want everything in the economy accounted for and verified. No cash payments for anything. Nobody working illegally, nobody getting paid off the books, nobody skipping out on their taxes. I am proposing that EVERY single person pay ALL of the income taxes (and mandatory health insurance premiums) that they are supposed to, and I CHALLENGE anyone to show me how this will not substantially lower the tax and insurance burden on us all. I mean, you could probably balance the entire Federal budget just on proper taxation of restaurant owners and waiters.
The technology certainly exists to do this. A card for every legal American (oh, and I would grandfather in everyone who's already here, except criminals and people under age 65 who cannot speak English after a two year grace period...but that's another story), which will be security protected for each individual. ALL your transactions are on there....when it's time to file your tax return you just swipe your card and you know where you stand. When you get paid at work, your check is direct deposited. When you need "money" you can swipe your card at an "ATM" and get your dough on your card.
Oh, and don't tell me you don't want "big brother" watching you. I have no problem with Big Brother "watching" me.....as long as he is watching EVERYBODY. This is not about anybody watching anybody else. It's about making things FAIR. 'Cuz you know which part of our economy really needs Chapter 11'ing? All the stuff that's just plain not fair. All the things that really irk fair minded people from all perspectives. I don't like that my taxes are so high, and my crappy business owner health insurance is insanely expensive, but what irks me the most is that if everybody paid, these things would cost less.
My other idea is in the "foreign policy" area. I won't elaborate on it. I will just throw it out there for some thought. I personally think it would work, and would ultimately make the world a better place. Please think about.........
2. Israel as the 51st State.
Sometimes it seems like the whole economy should file for Chapter 11.
Things have gotten so complicated that I am reluctant to contact President-Elect Obama about my two BIG ideas. These are things I have been thinking about for a few years. Maybe I am not the only one who has thought of these things, but for once, I have not googled them because I want to feel like I thought of them. I want to develop them. I want these ideas to be put into action because I know they will work, despite their apparent oddness. I might even let some think-tanks tinker with them, maybe perfect some of the fine points. There may be some possible flaws in these ideas, but I can assure you, they are misguided and can be addressed to the satisfaction of any clear thinking person.
OK....here are the two ideas.....................
1. A cashless economy. I am proposing that we eliminate all cash money except one dollar bills and quarters. All transactions, and I mean ALL transactions, should be on credit/debit cards. I want everything in the economy accounted for and verified. No cash payments for anything. Nobody working illegally, nobody getting paid off the books, nobody skipping out on their taxes. I am proposing that EVERY single person pay ALL of the income taxes (and mandatory health insurance premiums) that they are supposed to, and I CHALLENGE anyone to show me how this will not substantially lower the tax and insurance burden on us all. I mean, you could probably balance the entire Federal budget just on proper taxation of restaurant owners and waiters.
The technology certainly exists to do this. A card for every legal American (oh, and I would grandfather in everyone who's already here, except criminals and people under age 65 who cannot speak English after a two year grace period...but that's another story), which will be security protected for each individual. ALL your transactions are on there....when it's time to file your tax return you just swipe your card and you know where you stand. When you get paid at work, your check is direct deposited. When you need "money" you can swipe your card at an "ATM" and get your dough on your card.
Oh, and don't tell me you don't want "big brother" watching you. I have no problem with Big Brother "watching" me.....as long as he is watching EVERYBODY. This is not about anybody watching anybody else. It's about making things FAIR. 'Cuz you know which part of our economy really needs Chapter 11'ing? All the stuff that's just plain not fair. All the things that really irk fair minded people from all perspectives. I don't like that my taxes are so high, and my crappy business owner health insurance is insanely expensive, but what irks me the most is that if everybody paid, these things would cost less.
My other idea is in the "foreign policy" area. I won't elaborate on it. I will just throw it out there for some thought. I personally think it would work, and would ultimately make the world a better place. Please think about.........
2. Israel as the 51st State.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The Essence of "HEALTH" Insurance
Yesterday I visited my cardiologist for a regularly scheduled exam. It was thankfully uneventful, and since I was her last patient of the day, I was comfortable making some political/medical chit-chat. This was prompted by our review of my ever changing meds, which change not because my health changes, but because my carrier regularly switches presciption plans in an ongoing effort to save (their) money (undoubtedly at the expense of MY health and convenience).
I asked her what direction she thought Obama and the Democrats would take health care. I must admit, I expected her to talk about the dangers of "socialized medicine", so before she answered I threw in a preliminary "what we have been doing is not working".
She said, "You know which health insurer I find the best to work with, as a doctor?"
I said, "No, which one?"
"Medicare", she replied.
"How could that be?"
She answered, "Basically, they have a fee schedule and it is what it is. When we submit a claim, it seems to me they process it and pay it, efficiently. They seem to have very little waste, and studies have shown this is true. They are not being run "for profit", so they don't nickel and dime the doctors, and force that game where you put in high claims knowing they are going to be knocked down. It also burns me up when I see a retired doctor sitting as chair of Aetna, making $12 million a year. There's something wrong with that."
Wow! I asked if she thought nationalized health service would work, and whether quality of care would suffer. She did not favor nationalizing it, but said she felt strongly that McCain's talk about "the private marketplace" were the wrong way to go.
After I left, I could not stop thinking about this.
What really bothers me is the feeling that health insurance has nothing to do with health. It's strictly business. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lLaByD0LFY&feature=related Do you ever feel they would "err on the side of caution" and approve something? Without a fight?
Would premiums ever, EVER go down? Even if profits went up?
Have you ever looked at the game that goes on between doctors and insurers? The one where various bills are submitted for say.....$4300, and the doctors are paid $382.....when you know you had high level tests and were attended to by at least six highly trained, caring, competent health care professionals?
Should health insurance be adversarial? Damn, it always is.
I'm usually not big on conspiracy theories, but I sense that these problems do not only rest with the health insurers. Am I the only one who thinks there is something fundamentally wrong with our "pharmaceutical" system? Well, it has something in common with the insurance industry....a profit based system based on OUR health.
Gee, I feel like half a socialist having said that. Let me go one step further....Would anyone argue that food and nutrition have at least SOME effect on health? The disrespect of the nation's health by our food purveyors is another example of profit and health not mixing.
Uh - how about cigarettes? Yeah, that too....profit and health not mixing. BTW, many are aware (and many are not) that President-Elect Obama has struggled with cigarette addiction for many years. I'd love to see him kick it for good and take a real stand against the industry. It's hard to imagine he didn't smoke during the campaign http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwyrGwM4a7M
In one of the debates Obama spoke in some detail about healthcare, concluding with "prevention". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKS-D5_v9A0 He is so right about this, but he will be fighting strong entrenched power. When the time comes, this issue can be taken in the right direction, and it will not come from the government, though they can lead, it will come from all of us.
I asked her what direction she thought Obama and the Democrats would take health care. I must admit, I expected her to talk about the dangers of "socialized medicine", so before she answered I threw in a preliminary "what we have been doing is not working".
She said, "You know which health insurer I find the best to work with, as a doctor?"
I said, "No, which one?"
"Medicare", she replied.
"How could that be?"
She answered, "Basically, they have a fee schedule and it is what it is. When we submit a claim, it seems to me they process it and pay it, efficiently. They seem to have very little waste, and studies have shown this is true. They are not being run "for profit", so they don't nickel and dime the doctors, and force that game where you put in high claims knowing they are going to be knocked down. It also burns me up when I see a retired doctor sitting as chair of Aetna, making $12 million a year. There's something wrong with that."
Wow! I asked if she thought nationalized health service would work, and whether quality of care would suffer. She did not favor nationalizing it, but said she felt strongly that McCain's talk about "the private marketplace" were the wrong way to go.
After I left, I could not stop thinking about this.
What really bothers me is the feeling that health insurance has nothing to do with health. It's strictly business. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lLaByD0LFY&feature=related Do you ever feel they would "err on the side of caution" and approve something? Without a fight?
Would premiums ever, EVER go down? Even if profits went up?
Have you ever looked at the game that goes on between doctors and insurers? The one where various bills are submitted for say.....$4300, and the doctors are paid $382.....when you know you had high level tests and were attended to by at least six highly trained, caring, competent health care professionals?
Should health insurance be adversarial? Damn, it always is.
I'm usually not big on conspiracy theories, but I sense that these problems do not only rest with the health insurers. Am I the only one who thinks there is something fundamentally wrong with our "pharmaceutical" system? Well, it has something in common with the insurance industry....a profit based system based on OUR health.
Gee, I feel like half a socialist having said that. Let me go one step further....Would anyone argue that food and nutrition have at least SOME effect on health? The disrespect of the nation's health by our food purveyors is another example of profit and health not mixing.
Uh - how about cigarettes? Yeah, that too....profit and health not mixing. BTW, many are aware (and many are not) that President-Elect Obama has struggled with cigarette addiction for many years. I'd love to see him kick it for good and take a real stand against the industry. It's hard to imagine he didn't smoke during the campaign http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwyrGwM4a7M
In one of the debates Obama spoke in some detail about healthcare, concluding with "prevention". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKS-D5_v9A0 He is so right about this, but he will be fighting strong entrenched power. When the time comes, this issue can be taken in the right direction, and it will not come from the government, though they can lead, it will come from all of us.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Top 10 Memorable Events....Where Will This Rank?
I was going to post a "post-election wrap-up", but so many smart people have already said and written so much, I'll keep mine brief. I especially enjoyed Frank Rich's column in The Sunday Times . http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/opinion/09rich.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I can't resist a few quick observations....
I thought the choice was a "no-brainer", and was horrified by the possibility of racial stupidity actually deciding it. Thankfully, we did a collective "Do The Right Thing". As an aside, if you have never seen "Do the Right Thing" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097216/ rent it!! It was groundbreaking because not only did it show white racism from a black perspective, it also courageously questioned many values in the black community.
Obama has incredible energy and stamina. Looks like he took a day off and is ready to get started.
I think Obama will bring in great people. Rahm Emanuel is just a start. If you don't know much about him, check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel
As an adjunct to dealing with the economy, I think immigration will be an early prominent issue. We're gonna need more taxpayers and more participants in universal health care!!
Look for "family values" to return to national discussion. When Obama talks about it, it will have an impact. One of the best things he said during the debates was that "Parents have to take responsibility for education and turn off the TV when necessary."
This election night strikes me as one of those all time "I remember where I was" moments. Will that last? Here's my list of top 10 memorable events (Personal events not included):
10. Mookie's gound ball going through Buckner's legs.
9. Iranian hostages freed.
8. The aftermath of Kent State....I was 13 years old and pretty "conservative". When I heard people justifying the shooting of college students, I changed my world view.
7. Watching the Watergate hearings drone on, when suddenly a Nixon aide said something about tape recordings, and thinking....WOW.
6. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. A subway conductor announced it over the intercom.
5. John Lennon assassination.
4. Martin Luther King assassination.
3. Robert Kennedy assassination.
2. JFK assassination. I was in second grade. The teachers were crying.
1. 9/11
Obama's election may find a place on that list. How's your list? Will this election be on it?
I can't resist a few quick observations....
I thought the choice was a "no-brainer", and was horrified by the possibility of racial stupidity actually deciding it. Thankfully, we did a collective "Do The Right Thing". As an aside, if you have never seen "Do the Right Thing" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097216/ rent it!! It was groundbreaking because not only did it show white racism from a black perspective, it also courageously questioned many values in the black community.
Obama has incredible energy and stamina. Looks like he took a day off and is ready to get started.
I think Obama will bring in great people. Rahm Emanuel is just a start. If you don't know much about him, check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel
As an adjunct to dealing with the economy, I think immigration will be an early prominent issue. We're gonna need more taxpayers and more participants in universal health care!!
Look for "family values" to return to national discussion. When Obama talks about it, it will have an impact. One of the best things he said during the debates was that "Parents have to take responsibility for education and turn off the TV when necessary."
This election night strikes me as one of those all time "I remember where I was" moments. Will that last? Here's my list of top 10 memorable events (Personal events not included):
10. Mookie's gound ball going through Buckner's legs.
9. Iranian hostages freed.
8. The aftermath of Kent State....I was 13 years old and pretty "conservative". When I heard people justifying the shooting of college students, I changed my world view.
7. Watching the Watergate hearings drone on, when suddenly a Nixon aide said something about tape recordings, and thinking....WOW.
6. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. A subway conductor announced it over the intercom.
5. John Lennon assassination.
4. Martin Luther King assassination.
3. Robert Kennedy assassination.
2. JFK assassination. I was in second grade. The teachers were crying.
1. 9/11
Obama's election may find a place on that list. How's your list? Will this election be on it?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Top 10 Reasons I'm Voting for Obama
I'm proud to say it is never an easy decision. I abhor labels, and while I am a registered Democrat, that is only so I can vote in our politico-machine controlled New York primaries. I am not a liberal or a conservative, I'd rather be a "thinker".
No political affiliation owns my patriotism. I assume that all people who have opinions and vote, are patriotic. I make my decision based on what I perceive as best for this country.
I try not to look back, but it's impossible to avoid. Looking back.....I thought Gore would have made a fine President, but the country wanted a change after Clinton, and Bush's handlers made that message work. I thought W proved himself inept in his first term, and although I voted for Kerry, clearly he was a flawed candidate.
History will not be kind to W. In my view he will go down as one of the worst Presidents ever.
On election day 2008, the country will collectively say "WHAT WERE WE THINKING????"
Which brings us to Obama v McCain......
During the Republican primaries, I wrote positively about McCain http://nylaw2law.blogspot.com/2008/01/reconsidering-mccain.html
I especially admired his efforts in sponsoring the compromise immigration bill, which his Republican mates destroyed, and then used to attack him in the primaries. He outsmarted them though, because not only was he right about immigration, he needed to distance himself from the knuckle walkers, and he did. He was smart enough to stake out the middle ground, figuring he would still hold the right. It was enough to beat Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani for the nomination. But it will not be enough to take the big one.
But I digress.....here are the Top 10 Reasons I am Voting for Obama:
10. He already defeated the strongest opponent.
9. I apply a "Law of Beholdency". I ask "Who will this candidate be beholden to?" If you ask this about W, you see a big part of the problem. I am sick of his beholdencies. Obama is not a typical African-American candidate because he is not beholden to that community. If he were, he would be un-electable. No, he has realized from the start that he did not have to espouse a "black agenda", he would have community support without doing that. Instead, he garnered support from a cross-section of Democrats, and his "beholdencies" are THERE, in a cross section of Americans. Kinda different, kinda nice.
8. He has inspired a lot of people to work for him, raised a ton of money from a huge number of contributors, and convinced people who the "experts" said could not be convinced. There is a perfect word to describe this.....LEADERSHIP.
7. He has already shown superb judgment under enormous pressure. The primaries and this election have been going on a long time. It has taken turns and thrown him curveballs. The "Pastor Wright scandal" would have stopped a lesser candidate. He has handled everything without a bobble. Strikes me as WAY harder than "being a Senator" or "governor of A-lass-ka".
6. McCain displayed an enormous, unforgiveable error in judgment in selecting Sarah Palin.
5. There is something to be said for a real "family man" in the White House. Obama seems like the real deal in that regard.
4. I give a lot of weight to who I want nominating the next few Supreme Court Justices. I want Obama's choices sitting there.....not the Neanderthals McCain has pandered to.
3. I know it may be a character flaw to "care what other people think", but frankly, I am embarrassed by what the rest of the world must think of us Americans, after electing W twice. It feels better thinking of how we'll appear as a country when we elect Obama.
2. Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review, and a constitutional law professor at University of Chicago Law School. There is no question he got these on merit. As a lawyer, lemme tell you what those two accomplishments say about him......He is REALLY, REALLY SMART. We need that.
1. I want a President who will be open minded, strong, and exercise good judgment. Someone who will seek out top advisors and be able not only to listen to them, but sometimes not listen to them. I want a President who will be decisive, but also flexible. Someone who will lead by example. Someone who has the energy and intelligence to lead our great Country. Barack Obama is that person.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
No political affiliation owns my patriotism. I assume that all people who have opinions and vote, are patriotic. I make my decision based on what I perceive as best for this country.
I try not to look back, but it's impossible to avoid. Looking back.....I thought Gore would have made a fine President, but the country wanted a change after Clinton, and Bush's handlers made that message work. I thought W proved himself inept in his first term, and although I voted for Kerry, clearly he was a flawed candidate.
History will not be kind to W. In my view he will go down as one of the worst Presidents ever.
On election day 2008, the country will collectively say "WHAT WERE WE THINKING????"
Which brings us to Obama v McCain......
During the Republican primaries, I wrote positively about McCain http://nylaw2law.blogspot.com/2008/01/reconsidering-mccain.html
I especially admired his efforts in sponsoring the compromise immigration bill, which his Republican mates destroyed, and then used to attack him in the primaries. He outsmarted them though, because not only was he right about immigration, he needed to distance himself from the knuckle walkers, and he did. He was smart enough to stake out the middle ground, figuring he would still hold the right. It was enough to beat Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani for the nomination. But it will not be enough to take the big one.
But I digress.....here are the Top 10 Reasons I am Voting for Obama:
10. He already defeated the strongest opponent.
9. I apply a "Law of Beholdency". I ask "Who will this candidate be beholden to?" If you ask this about W, you see a big part of the problem. I am sick of his beholdencies. Obama is not a typical African-American candidate because he is not beholden to that community. If he were, he would be un-electable. No, he has realized from the start that he did not have to espouse a "black agenda", he would have community support without doing that. Instead, he garnered support from a cross-section of Democrats, and his "beholdencies" are THERE, in a cross section of Americans. Kinda different, kinda nice.
8. He has inspired a lot of people to work for him, raised a ton of money from a huge number of contributors, and convinced people who the "experts" said could not be convinced. There is a perfect word to describe this.....LEADERSHIP.
7. He has already shown superb judgment under enormous pressure. The primaries and this election have been going on a long time. It has taken turns and thrown him curveballs. The "Pastor Wright scandal" would have stopped a lesser candidate. He has handled everything without a bobble. Strikes me as WAY harder than "being a Senator" or "governor of A-lass-ka".
6. McCain displayed an enormous, unforgiveable error in judgment in selecting Sarah Palin.
5. There is something to be said for a real "family man" in the White House. Obama seems like the real deal in that regard.
4. I give a lot of weight to who I want nominating the next few Supreme Court Justices. I want Obama's choices sitting there.....not the Neanderthals McCain has pandered to.
3. I know it may be a character flaw to "care what other people think", but frankly, I am embarrassed by what the rest of the world must think of us Americans, after electing W twice. It feels better thinking of how we'll appear as a country when we elect Obama.
2. Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review, and a constitutional law professor at University of Chicago Law School. There is no question he got these on merit. As a lawyer, lemme tell you what those two accomplishments say about him......He is REALLY, REALLY SMART. We need that.
1. I want a President who will be open minded, strong, and exercise good judgment. Someone who will seek out top advisors and be able not only to listen to them, but sometimes not listen to them. I want a President who will be decisive, but also flexible. Someone who will lead by example. Someone who has the energy and intelligence to lead our great Country. Barack Obama is that person.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Absence From Blogging....Passover and Yom Ha'Shoah
I haven't blogged since Passover. It has not been for lack of thinking about it. What happened was.......I had a BIG idea, something I really wanted to write about......except, when I sat down to write it, I didn't.
Fortunately, I have had some time to mull over my excuses and LEARN. Here's what I learned......
If an idea is uncomfortable and painful, it's worth addressing.
If you think you are unworthy of speaking about something, not only are you wrong, but it's precisely the reason you should speak.
If a project seems too big, break it into smaller pieces and START.
The thing worse than imperfect writing is NO writing.
Fortunately, I have had some time to mull over my excuses and LEARN. Here's what I learned......
If an idea is uncomfortable and painful, it's worth addressing.
If you think you are unworthy of speaking about something, not only are you wrong, but it's precisely the reason you should speak.
If a project seems too big, break it into smaller pieces and START.
The thing worse than imperfect writing is NO writing.
As stated at the end of my Passover post, what I wanted to write about was the connection between Passover and Yom Ha'Shoah.
PASSOVER and YOM HA'SHOAH (Part 1)
Yom Ha'Shoah is a "holiday" of relatively recent vintage. Essentially, it is Holocaust Remembrance Day. Here is the Wikipedic version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_HaShoah I never was too aware of it, but during the past few years I have attended Yom HaShoah programs. The last two years I attended programs at the Brandeis Association, a Jewish lawyers group in Queens. Both years they had speakers talking about the dismantling of the German legal system as a prelude to the Holocaust. This year, a professor showed a documentary "Hitler's Courts" http://www.tourolaw.edu/news/press88.asp documenting how Hitler realized that a vital step in the genocidal process was to eliminate civil rights by co-opting the Courts and the Judges. Fascinating material, and timely, considering that the presentation provoked a spirited discussion about respect for the "rule of law" as it applies to Guantanamo. This was three weeks before the Supreme Court ruling on the legal rights of the Guantanamo prisoners.
Yom HaShoah follows soon after Passover. On Passover we are directed to tell and retell the story of the exodus from Egypt, from slavery to freedom. There is emphasis on telling the children, and having them tell their children. It seems to have worked. We are still telling, people still know.
The generation of actual Holocaust survivors is ending. There has been some telling, but many of them did not tell....could not tell. A generation later, there are Holocaust deniers. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/denial.html The President of Iran is in the club too http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.israel/
Thankfully, this has all been studied and documented. It should NEVER be trivialized, or relegated to some "pages in history". There is one way for that not to happen. The story should be told and re-told, from generation to generation. The materials should be discussed. The applicability to modern times is "life and death" relevant.
Tomorrow - some re-telling....what I know about my mother as Holocaust escapee/survivor.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Thoughts on Barack
Since I've been calling Senator Clinton "Hillary", I have decided to be even handed and fair and refer to Senator Obama as "Barack".
The first time I heard the full Reverend Wright recordings I was driving back from court, listening to Rush Limbaugh. Now, to all my liberal friends, I urge you not to commit "guilt by association" and condemn me for listening to Rush. I've gone on record as saying you have to leave your brain at the door to listen to Rush, or Sean Hannity. Here's a link to the best of Reverend Wright (incidentally, transcripts do not do it justice, these should be seen and heard) http://youtube.com/watch?v=bZVzAAVU-U4
In case you were wondering, that silence you have noticed lately is Hillary NOT talking about this. Mr. Clinton is muzzled too. This was the miracle Hill & Bill have prayed for. She hasn't been able to touch him. Every attack has backfired. This is the unforced error they needed, and they are letting Barack twist in the wind.
The other silence is McCain saying zero about this.....for now. My guess is they are pulling for wounded Barack to fight his way to the nomination, so they can Willie Horton their way into the White House. Remember this? http://youtube.com/watch?v=EC9j6Wfdq3o Will that work? Well, if you want the Democrats to win, it ain't gonna help.
Barack's response to all of this has been tentative and unconvincing. Here's a column that says it well http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjE3NDc3YTU0ZGM5NGEzZTdkNjcyZjBiNDVjMjU5MGQ=
Media coverage on the Pastor Wright story has been surprisingly light. You don't think so? Ask yourself this question.....How would the coverage have been if ANY Republican candidate had attended a church for 20 years where the leader had said racist, incendiary, anti-American things? He might get the nomination, but the media would beat the drums and ensure his defeat in the general election.
One place where this story will not be lightly covered.....the Democratic convention. Particularly among the Super Delegates. The real politicians. The ones who know what it takes to get elected, or heaven forbid, be.......UN-ELECTABLE.
How ironic, if Barack becomes viewed by his own party as un-electable, and not because of his race. He'll be perceived as un-electable because the majority of Americans will know that a fair standard has been applied, and that a real LEADER, a UNITER of ALL Americans, would NOT have stayed with this Pastor.
Oh, and Barack, you have one way to salvage this thing. CONDEMN your Pastor's words as WRONG, as NOT your beliefs, and say it like you believe it.
Keep saying he's your embarassing uncle, and the real embarassment will begin.
The first time I heard the full Reverend Wright recordings I was driving back from court, listening to Rush Limbaugh. Now, to all my liberal friends, I urge you not to commit "guilt by association" and condemn me for listening to Rush. I've gone on record as saying you have to leave your brain at the door to listen to Rush, or Sean Hannity. Here's a link to the best of Reverend Wright (incidentally, transcripts do not do it justice, these should be seen and heard) http://youtube.com/watch?v=bZVzAAVU-U4
In case you were wondering, that silence you have noticed lately is Hillary NOT talking about this. Mr. Clinton is muzzled too. This was the miracle Hill & Bill have prayed for. She hasn't been able to touch him. Every attack has backfired. This is the unforced error they needed, and they are letting Barack twist in the wind.
The other silence is McCain saying zero about this.....for now. My guess is they are pulling for wounded Barack to fight his way to the nomination, so they can Willie Horton their way into the White House. Remember this? http://youtube.com/watch?v=EC9j6Wfdq3o Will that work? Well, if you want the Democrats to win, it ain't gonna help.
Barack's response to all of this has been tentative and unconvincing. Here's a column that says it well http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjE3NDc3YTU0ZGM5NGEzZTdkNjcyZjBiNDVjMjU5MGQ=
Media coverage on the Pastor Wright story has been surprisingly light. You don't think so? Ask yourself this question.....How would the coverage have been if ANY Republican candidate had attended a church for 20 years where the leader had said racist, incendiary, anti-American things? He might get the nomination, but the media would beat the drums and ensure his defeat in the general election.
One place where this story will not be lightly covered.....the Democratic convention. Particularly among the Super Delegates. The real politicians. The ones who know what it takes to get elected, or heaven forbid, be.......UN-ELECTABLE.
How ironic, if Barack becomes viewed by his own party as un-electable, and not because of his race. He'll be perceived as un-electable because the majority of Americans will know that a fair standard has been applied, and that a real LEADER, a UNITER of ALL Americans, would NOT have stayed with this Pastor.
Oh, and Barack, you have one way to salvage this thing. CONDEMN your Pastor's words as WRONG, as NOT your beliefs, and say it like you believe it.
Keep saying he's your embarassing uncle, and the real embarassment will begin.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Immigration Issues in the General Election
I love writing about the Presidential election. Everybody's talking about it, everybody's analyzing. I haven't got much to add to all the blah blah blah. I'll just summarize, so I can jump ahead and talk about immigration.
The Democrats - Obama is giving Hillary a major tussle, making her work much harder for the nomination than she ever expected. She's using money and resources she really hoped to save for the general election. Ultimately she's gonna get the nomination, and her political instincts will tell her that Obama is popular and useful, and she will need him on board in just the right way. She will need him for a big turnout that does not cause a backlash turnout.
The Republicans - McCain cannot be stopped. If Romney seemed like a nice guy, we'd all be feeling sorry for what McCain and Huckabee are doing to him. However, he's basically an unlikeable, rich guy who's kinda creepy, so nobody is rallying behind him. McCain is going to get a lot of Democrats crossing over to him, and his challenge is to get the backbone Republicans to turn out for him. Can he do it?
That's it in a nutshell.
I have promised to analyze the Hispanic voters likely impact on the election. They are not presently galvanized behind one candidate. In case nobody noticed, there WAS a Hispanic candidate on the Democrat side, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson....BILL RICHARDSON!?!?!?
He's not galvanizing anybody.
A better choice would have been Victor Sifuentes.
Actually, the Hispanic influence in the general election is going to be hard to predict, for a few reasons:
1. Will they be motivated for a high turnout?
2. Will they be motivated by any particular issue or candidate to vote in a bloc?
3. Are they concentrated in key contested States?
4. Will either candidate figure out the proper appeal?
Here's a link to an interesting piece in the 2/5/08 Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120217267552142823.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The fascinating premiss of this piece is that the the strident anti-immigrant positions taken by the non-McCain Republicans are not resonating with voters, including Republicans. When I've heard the candidates (and conservative talk-radio hosts) railing about McCain's "amnesty bill", I wondered if voters were buying it. I think they are not, and they will not.
How will the immigration issue play out between McCain and Hillary?
More tomorrow.....
The Democrats - Obama is giving Hillary a major tussle, making her work much harder for the nomination than she ever expected. She's using money and resources she really hoped to save for the general election. Ultimately she's gonna get the nomination, and her political instincts will tell her that Obama is popular and useful, and she will need him on board in just the right way. She will need him for a big turnout that does not cause a backlash turnout.
The Republicans - McCain cannot be stopped. If Romney seemed like a nice guy, we'd all be feeling sorry for what McCain and Huckabee are doing to him. However, he's basically an unlikeable, rich guy who's kinda creepy, so nobody is rallying behind him. McCain is going to get a lot of Democrats crossing over to him, and his challenge is to get the backbone Republicans to turn out for him. Can he do it?
That's it in a nutshell.
I have promised to analyze the Hispanic voters likely impact on the election. They are not presently galvanized behind one candidate. In case nobody noticed, there WAS a Hispanic candidate on the Democrat side, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson....BILL RICHARDSON!?!?!?
He's not galvanizing anybody.
A better choice would have been Victor Sifuentes.
Actually, the Hispanic influence in the general election is going to be hard to predict, for a few reasons:
1. Will they be motivated for a high turnout?
2. Will they be motivated by any particular issue or candidate to vote in a bloc?
3. Are they concentrated in key contested States?
4. Will either candidate figure out the proper appeal?
Here's a link to an interesting piece in the 2/5/08 Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120217267552142823.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The fascinating premiss of this piece is that the the strident anti-immigrant positions taken by the non-McCain Republicans are not resonating with voters, including Republicans. When I've heard the candidates (and conservative talk-radio hosts) railing about McCain's "amnesty bill", I wondered if voters were buying it. I think they are not, and they will not.
How will the immigration issue play out between McCain and Hillary?
More tomorrow.....
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Bye-Bye John and Rudy
Yesterday, I promised to blog about Hispanic voters. I'll get back to that. There was too much news today to ignore.
John Edwards drops out. Something about this bothers me. As conservative as I am about some things, I have always liked John Edwards. I think he would make a fine President. When he ran for Vice President, one reason I wanted Kerry to win was to have Edwards in the Presidential loop. This time, his candidacy was doomed from the start. Talk about bad match-ups.....Hillary AND Obama. What's a liberal white male to do? He gave it a shot, the press ignored him, the voters ignored him, and surely he was running out of money. His leaving the race really helps Hillary. It guarantees a first ballot nomination, and avoids a rancorous brokered convention. I don't expect him to endorse Hillary or Obama, just pledge to support the nominee. This is the smart move, and he's smart.
Rudy drops out. He'd have had a better shot if he'd switched parties and run for the Democratic nomination. I can't fault his Florida strategy. The fact is, had he campaigned earlier, he would have lost in Iowa and New Hampshire, and he knew it. Those races went as well as they could have for him, but he was never going to gain traction with most Republicans. I don't know if McCain would take him as Vice President, but I will say this....he's got to consider it. I'd also say that, looking at McCain, his VP choice will be heavily weighed by the voters. He didn't look too hot in the debate tonite.....at least in the four minutes I could stomach watching. His jaw looked so tight, I expected him to say
Next post, a discussion of the anticipated courting of the Hispanic vote.
Hasta la vista.
John Edwards drops out. Something about this bothers me. As conservative as I am about some things, I have always liked John Edwards. I think he would make a fine President. When he ran for Vice President, one reason I wanted Kerry to win was to have Edwards in the Presidential loop. This time, his candidacy was doomed from the start. Talk about bad match-ups.....Hillary AND Obama. What's a liberal white male to do? He gave it a shot, the press ignored him, the voters ignored him, and surely he was running out of money. His leaving the race really helps Hillary. It guarantees a first ballot nomination, and avoids a rancorous brokered convention. I don't expect him to endorse Hillary or Obama, just pledge to support the nominee. This is the smart move, and he's smart.
Rudy drops out. He'd have had a better shot if he'd switched parties and run for the Democratic nomination. I can't fault his Florida strategy. The fact is, had he campaigned earlier, he would have lost in Iowa and New Hampshire, and he knew it. Those races went as well as they could have for him, but he was never going to gain traction with most Republicans. I don't know if McCain would take him as Vice President, but I will say this....he's got to consider it. I'd also say that, looking at McCain, his VP choice will be heavily weighed by the voters. He didn't look too hot in the debate tonite.....at least in the four minutes I could stomach watching. His jaw looked so tight, I expected him to say
"OIL CAN"
Next post, a discussion of the anticipated courting of the Hispanic vote.
Hasta la vista.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)