At this point no one knows what the future of healthcare reform is. On the one hand, the President seems as committed as ever to passing a bill, however imperfect, and preferably soon; on the other hand, the President’s advisers insist that reform “can wait a while,” which surely represents the death knell for any meaningful bill. Either way, the price of not acting is pretty high.
The Urban Institute and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have run some numbers on what healthcare in America will look like by the end of this decade if the status quo is maintained. (And make no mistake, the Republicans obstructing the bill in Congress prefer the status quo to any reform proposals currently on the table. If they take back either House of Congress in 2010, or the presidency in 2012, healthcare reform will be completely and utterly dead.) Their findings, and more, are discussed at length in an excellent piece by David Wessel in, of all places, The Wall Street Journal. Here’s what they project:
- The percentage of national GDP (a.k.a. national wealth) spent on healthcare will jump from 17.3 percent in 2009 to 19.3 percent in 2019. So that’s an extra two dollars for every hundred spent that we, as a society, will be spending on healthcare within the next ten years. In case those numbers need to be driven home, think of however much you spend on healthcare now. Then add to that amount $2 for every $100 you earn.
- The percentage of uninsured people will rise from 18.4 percent to 20.1 percent of the population. Yes, one in five citizens of the wealthiest, most powerful country in the history of the world will be without health insurance, and most of that increase will come from middle-class adults, not poor people or children (or seniors).
- That’s because the poor (especially children) and seniors have public options (familiar phrase, eh?) like Medicaid and Medicare. The percentage of poor people and children receiving public healthcare will rise from 16.5 to 18.3 percent. Even more frightening – the total amount the federal government spends on Medicare and Medicaid combined will increase from about $725 billion to $950 billion by 2014. That’s a 30 percent increase in less than five years, and we, the taxpayers, will be on the hook for that. Remember that Republicans hate voting for taxes, so that extra $225 billion or so will likely just be added to the deficit if the GOP controls Congress and/or the White House. (Also remember that that increase is only between now and 2014; it will keep going up, probably at faster rates, after 2014 if the status quo is maintained.)
I don’t need to tell you, Dear Reader, that the reform proposals put forward by the Democrats in Congress (take your pick between either House’s version, since either one is preferable to the scenario I’ve just outlined above) would bring down the rapidly rising cost of healthcare, cover somewhere between 60 and 70 percent of the uninsured (click that link and then select "Coverage"), and reduce the federal deficit by over $100 billion (click on "Cost" and then "Net decrease in the Deficit") over the next decade. No, I doubt I need to tell you any of those things, but someone sure as hell needs to tell the Democrats in Congress.
Ezra Klein has a great piece in his blog (which I recommend everybody read on a daily basis) on how the problem lies not with the Democrats’ ability to pass healthcare reform – reconciliation, overcoming a filibuster, etc. – but with their will to do it. I’ll let Ezra have the last word on this one, since he’s better at this than I am:
If 51 Democratic senators and 218 Democratic congresspeople are dead-serious about passing a bill, they can, and will, pass a bill. ... Democrats can pass this if they want to. The project now is not learning the Senate rules but steeling Democratic spines. … This is the closest this country has ever gotten to passing a universal health-care bill, and a critical mass of congressional Democrats have chosen this as the moment to freeze up. They need to be slapped back to reality.
Let the slapping begin.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
I like Gavin Newsom. His forceful stand on behalf of equal rights in 2004 remains one of the most courageous things I've ever seen a politician do. This is the guy who earned the wrath of millions of Californians and Americans by introducing us to the radical idea that two men or two women could marry one another and live happily ever after, pissing off even his city's former mayor, and California's most popular political figure, Dianne Feinstein. So why did he act like such a spineless wimp during his debut appearance on The O'Reilly Factor the other night? Bill O'Reilly crudely insulted the City of San Francisco and inaccurately blamed the entire phenomenon of budget deficits solely on liberal policies, and Newsom... pretty much sat there and took it. (The clip is available here.)
What, I wonder, was Mayor Gavin thinking when he let Bill-O claim that California's $20 billion budget shortfall is attributable exclusively to the actions of the Democratic-controlled State Legislature? Watch the clip. When Newsom feebly protests that California has had a Republican governor for the last six years, O'Reilly shuts him down by claiming that Arnold Schwarzenegger "doesn't have any say over what the Legislature does." Never mind that Bill's statement is shockingly false; the Governor submits the annual budget and signs it into law, and has the line-item veto power that allows him to strike out individual spending items he disagrees with. Gavin doesn't correct Bill on this, nor does he point out that, in his first month as Governor, Schwarzenegger blew a permanent $4.2 billion hole in the state budget by overturning Gray Davis's Vehicle License Fee increase. How about the $1.7 billion in corporate tax breaks Schwarzenegger signed into law as part of the 2008-09 budgets? Nada from Newsom, yet again.
As for the larger issue, O'Reilly's claim that "liberal governance simply doesn't work," and causes huge deficits, Newsom would have been well within the bounds of logic and reason to point out that, up until 2009, the largest deficits in American history had all been signed into law by conservative Republican presidents - Reagan and both Bushes, to be exact. Those deficits, he might have added, were caused by massive increases in defense spending and large tax cuts skewed overwhelmingly to wealthy taxpayers and corporations - both of which are policies supported by conservatives, not liberals.
Even more shocking was Gavin's meek response to Bill's degrading and purely emotion-based attacks on San Francisco, a lovely city which has twice elected Newsom. In response to O'Reilly's ranting about "panhandlers everywhere," Mayor Gavin correctly points out that the city has over 10,000 fewer homeless people living on the street than it did when he was elected six years ago, thanks to initiatives like Care Not Cash. Still, though, he lets Bill-O continue to rant. Not once does he forcefully interrupt O'Reilly to say, "Look, Bill, you're not backing up these statements with evidence. I'm giving you indisputable facts about what San Francisco has done to improve its homeless problem under my leadership, and you're making wild claims that are not supported by the numbers. I mean, have you even been to San Francisco lately?" With all due respect to Bill O'Reilly (oh wait - there is no respect due to this scumbag, that's right), I have been to the City plenty these past several years, and when I go there now I notice far fewer homeless people than I did when I grew up in the Bay Area.
No, instead Newsom insists on kissing up to O'Reilly, even pathetically pandering at the interview's outset by claiming to watch The O'Reilly Factor "every night." Really, Mr. Mayor? What do you hope to accomplish by acting this way? Bill O'Reilly is a man who has repeatedly demonstrated his contempt for civil discourse and responsible journalism by shouting down and intimidating his opponents, or sometimes just making up lies out of thin air. (My personal favorite was when he cited economic statistics about a boycott of France from a publication called "The Paris Business Review" - which does not exist. At all. Anywhere.)
If Gavin Newsom hopes to have a real political future in California (and an item in today's San Francisco Chronicle hints that he may jump into this year's race for Lieutenant Governor), I'd advise him to rethink his media strategy a bit. It's not that he needs to shun or disavow the right-wing propaganda machine that is Fox "News" altogether, as some Democrats and liberals do. But he shouldn't suck up to it, either. He's better than that.
What, I wonder, was Mayor Gavin thinking when he let Bill-O claim that California's $20 billion budget shortfall is attributable exclusively to the actions of the Democratic-controlled State Legislature? Watch the clip. When Newsom feebly protests that California has had a Republican governor for the last six years, O'Reilly shuts him down by claiming that Arnold Schwarzenegger "doesn't have any say over what the Legislature does." Never mind that Bill's statement is shockingly false; the Governor submits the annual budget and signs it into law, and has the line-item veto power that allows him to strike out individual spending items he disagrees with. Gavin doesn't correct Bill on this, nor does he point out that, in his first month as Governor, Schwarzenegger blew a permanent $4.2 billion hole in the state budget by overturning Gray Davis's Vehicle License Fee increase. How about the $1.7 billion in corporate tax breaks Schwarzenegger signed into law as part of the 2008-09 budgets? Nada from Newsom, yet again.
As for the larger issue, O'Reilly's claim that "liberal governance simply doesn't work," and causes huge deficits, Newsom would have been well within the bounds of logic and reason to point out that, up until 2009, the largest deficits in American history had all been signed into law by conservative Republican presidents - Reagan and both Bushes, to be exact. Those deficits, he might have added, were caused by massive increases in defense spending and large tax cuts skewed overwhelmingly to wealthy taxpayers and corporations - both of which are policies supported by conservatives, not liberals.
Even more shocking was Gavin's meek response to Bill's degrading and purely emotion-based attacks on San Francisco, a lovely city which has twice elected Newsom. In response to O'Reilly's ranting about "panhandlers everywhere," Mayor Gavin correctly points out that the city has over 10,000 fewer homeless people living on the street than it did when he was elected six years ago, thanks to initiatives like Care Not Cash. Still, though, he lets Bill-O continue to rant. Not once does he forcefully interrupt O'Reilly to say, "Look, Bill, you're not backing up these statements with evidence. I'm giving you indisputable facts about what San Francisco has done to improve its homeless problem under my leadership, and you're making wild claims that are not supported by the numbers. I mean, have you even been to San Francisco lately?" With all due respect to Bill O'Reilly (oh wait - there is no respect due to this scumbag, that's right), I have been to the City plenty these past several years, and when I go there now I notice far fewer homeless people than I did when I grew up in the Bay Area.
No, instead Newsom insists on kissing up to O'Reilly, even pathetically pandering at the interview's outset by claiming to watch The O'Reilly Factor "every night." Really, Mr. Mayor? What do you hope to accomplish by acting this way? Bill O'Reilly is a man who has repeatedly demonstrated his contempt for civil discourse and responsible journalism by shouting down and intimidating his opponents, or sometimes just making up lies out of thin air. (My personal favorite was when he cited economic statistics about a boycott of France from a publication called "The Paris Business Review" - which does not exist. At all. Anywhere.)
If Gavin Newsom hopes to have a real political future in California (and an item in today's San Francisco Chronicle hints that he may jump into this year's race for Lieutenant Governor), I'd advise him to rethink his media strategy a bit. It's not that he needs to shun or disavow the right-wing propaganda machine that is Fox "News" altogether, as some Democrats and liberals do. But he shouldn't suck up to it, either. He's better than that.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Sigh.
I had a beautifully written, articulate, gripping post written about how I hoped Congresswoman Jackie Speier wouldn't run for State Attorney General, as she was considering doing... and then she decided not to run. Thus negating my entire post. And depriving you, my readership, of several witty, insightful paragraphs. In a way, I'm even more upset with her now than I was when she was just considering running. (Just kidding!)
Well, what I was going to say (and which Jackie Speier apparently agrees with me on) is that as long as Congress is full of faux-Democrats like Chris Dodd and Melissa Bean threatening to block financial reform, rather than protecting the consumers and middle-class families who have been hurt the most by predatory lenders, credit card companies, and big banks, we need as many real progressives in there as possible sticking up for working Americans. And Speier has a record of doing just that. So good for her.
Well, what I was going to say (and which Jackie Speier apparently agrees with me on) is that as long as Congress is full of faux-Democrats like Chris Dodd and Melissa Bean threatening to block financial reform, rather than protecting the consumers and middle-class families who have been hurt the most by predatory lenders, credit card companies, and big banks, we need as many real progressives in there as possible sticking up for working Americans. And Speier has a record of doing just that. So good for her.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Nobody threatens Steve "Tattletale" Poizner. Nobody!
So the big news of the day comes from the gubernatorial race, which has thus far been pretty lacking in drama. Mike Murphy, campaign manager for GOP frontrunner Meg Whitman, apparently sent an email to rival candidate Steve Poizner’s campaign team, urging that candidate to drop out of the race, and threatening to spend upwards of $40 million to defeat him if he refused. Now, assuming the email communiqué is legitimate and factual, this isn’t that abnormal an occurrence in California politics, where even intraparty primaries are noted for their brutal, cutthroat quality; there’s a reason state political websites take names like Rough & Tumble and Fox & Hounds. Murphy’s mistake, however, was in assuming that Steve Poizner would just roll over like a trained dog upon receiving such an email.
(Full disclosure: my parents and I both worked, in a volunteer capacity, on Ira Ruskin’s successful 2004 campaign for State Assembly against none other than Steve Poizner. I met Poizner on a handful of occasions and, while I can't honestly say I "know" him, I had many chances to observe his political style throughout that campaign.)
No, Poizner has chosen instead to lodge an official complaint-of-sorts with a number of state and federal entities charged with enforcing or overseeing election laws – the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, the Chairman of the Fair Political Practices Commission, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and no less than four FBI agents. No kidding; you can view the letter here, in PDF format. (As an aside, the irony is lost on exactly no one that the first person to whom the letter is addressed is Attorney General Jerry Brown, the presumptive Democratic nominee whom either Poizner or Whitman will face in the November general election.)
Now, let’s set aside for a moment the indisputable fact that, if Poizner’s charge is true, then Whitman’s campaign is in serious breach of anyone’s concept of ethics and probably also state election laws. What I’m curious about is the politics of Poizner releasing the email and formally lodging his complaint(s); what does he expect to gain? For one thing, barring a conviction for a serious crime, such as a felony, I’m pretty certain there is no authority under state law for anyone to disqualify a candidate from competing in an election, so there’s no chance Whitman could, say, be found in violation of political ethics laws and removed from the ballot.
No, it looks like Poizner’s just trying to boost his fortunes among likely Republican voters here. After all, he’s 28 points down in the latest Field Poll, and the election ain’t getting any further away. Whitman’s probably got the cash to bury even the ultra-wealthy Poizner with TV and radio ads, and much of the state political press has already dubbed “eMeg” the frontrunner, looking past the primary and speculating about a likely Whitman-Brown matchup in the fall. Poizner probably feels like his only hope left is to convince primary voters that Whitman is unethical, ruthless, obsessed with gaining power at no matter what cost, etc. – much like some of Barack Obama’s supporters did with Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic race.
It’s possible this may hurt Whitman, but keep in mind that she could always just fire Murphy and disavow his attempts to push Poizner out of the race, much like she distanced herself from a racist city councilmember from Southern California this week; she moved quickly enough on that one that Democrats didn’t even have time to make it an issue. Here’s her opportunity to do the same. Hell, she could always fire Murphy and then rehire him if she wins the election (pause for excruciating laughter), like Obama did with Samantha Power.
So my conclusion is that this looks like a desperate grasp for attention by an increasingly desperate candidate who is running out of time to introduce himself to voters and convince them that he’s up to the job he’s applying for. True, Whitman isn’t up to the job either, not by a long shot, and between the two of them, I’d begrudgingly have to give Poizner the edge on competence, but the guy’s polling at 17 percent. My griping about polls aside, 17 percent (compared to Whitman’s 45 percent) is pretty damn low, and at this stage of the game only the severest possible scandal could damage eMeg enough for Poizner to recover. This does not qualify as such a scandal.
(Full disclosure: my parents and I both worked, in a volunteer capacity, on Ira Ruskin’s successful 2004 campaign for State Assembly against none other than Steve Poizner. I met Poizner on a handful of occasions and, while I can't honestly say I "know" him, I had many chances to observe his political style throughout that campaign.)
No, Poizner has chosen instead to lodge an official complaint-of-sorts with a number of state and federal entities charged with enforcing or overseeing election laws – the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, the Chairman of the Fair Political Practices Commission, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and no less than four FBI agents. No kidding; you can view the letter here, in PDF format. (As an aside, the irony is lost on exactly no one that the first person to whom the letter is addressed is Attorney General Jerry Brown, the presumptive Democratic nominee whom either Poizner or Whitman will face in the November general election.)
Now, let’s set aside for a moment the indisputable fact that, if Poizner’s charge is true, then Whitman’s campaign is in serious breach of anyone’s concept of ethics and probably also state election laws. What I’m curious about is the politics of Poizner releasing the email and formally lodging his complaint(s); what does he expect to gain? For one thing, barring a conviction for a serious crime, such as a felony, I’m pretty certain there is no authority under state law for anyone to disqualify a candidate from competing in an election, so there’s no chance Whitman could, say, be found in violation of political ethics laws and removed from the ballot.
No, it looks like Poizner’s just trying to boost his fortunes among likely Republican voters here. After all, he’s 28 points down in the latest Field Poll, and the election ain’t getting any further away. Whitman’s probably got the cash to bury even the ultra-wealthy Poizner with TV and radio ads, and much of the state political press has already dubbed “eMeg” the frontrunner, looking past the primary and speculating about a likely Whitman-Brown matchup in the fall. Poizner probably feels like his only hope left is to convince primary voters that Whitman is unethical, ruthless, obsessed with gaining power at no matter what cost, etc. – much like some of Barack Obama’s supporters did with Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic race.
It’s possible this may hurt Whitman, but keep in mind that she could always just fire Murphy and disavow his attempts to push Poizner out of the race, much like she distanced herself from a racist city councilmember from Southern California this week; she moved quickly enough on that one that Democrats didn’t even have time to make it an issue. Here’s her opportunity to do the same. Hell, she could always fire Murphy and then rehire him if she wins the election (pause for excruciating laughter), like Obama did with Samantha Power.
So my conclusion is that this looks like a desperate grasp for attention by an increasingly desperate candidate who is running out of time to introduce himself to voters and convince them that he’s up to the job he’s applying for. True, Whitman isn’t up to the job either, not by a long shot, and between the two of them, I’d begrudgingly have to give Poizner the edge on competence, but the guy’s polling at 17 percent. My griping about polls aside, 17 percent (compared to Whitman’s 45 percent) is pretty damn low, and at this stage of the game only the severest possible scandal could damage eMeg enough for Poizner to recover. This does not qualify as such a scandal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)