Insomma

The Health Care Reform Dilemma

As far as I can remember, I have been in favor of health care reform. I find it inconceivable that a country as rich as ours doesn't provide health care for everyone and that employees of for-profit companies determine medical protocols and weather or not certain procedures will be approved and certain drugs administered. Nonetheless, I am not convinced by President Obama's public option. I cannot think of a single well and efficiently run government program and having some bureaucrat determine my protocol may be even more scary than depending on a private company that may be shamed, at times, into doing the right thing. I fear that my solution would be even more unpalatable to Republicans than Obama's is. I think that we should treat insurance companies - and drug manufacturers for that matter - as the utility industry of old was treated: the government should regulate premiums, reserves and permissable profits since it is immoral that the shareholders of these companies should enrich themselves at the expense of other people's lives. Basic premiums should be determined on the basis of the whole population and should include a surcharge to offer affordable options to low-income households and coverage to those who cannot afford to pay any premium at all. In additon to the basic premium, one should be able to buy more expensive coverage that would offer a choice of doctors. drugs, procedures, facilities and double or single hospital rooms. This would obviate the need for a costly government program and for a classist and divisive overtax on those earning more than a certain income. Why should those who are successful, often because of their hard work and because of the risks they are prepared to take, be penalized in order to treat the medical problems of other citizens who eat too much junk food, drink too many sodas and burden the health care system with diabetis, heart disease and a slew of other ailments due to their obesity? If there is a price to pay it would be only right to exact it through an additional tax on sugary drinks, fattening fast foods and snacks and tobacco. The fact that the manufacturers would "only pass on the cost to the consumer" is a positive by product: it would reduce, probably, consumption of these items and, if one wants to ruin his or her health by indulging his or her appetites, one should be prepared to pay for it. Knowing that the rich will pay the financial cost of health care is very unlikely to discurage food abuse. President Obama was elected, in part, because he gave the impression of wanting to do what is best for the country, not what coincides with Democratic party demagoguery; that's what he should strive to do if he wants his presidency to be successful and memorable.

Tra Il Dire E Il Fare...

An Italian adage suggests: "Tra il dire eil fare, c'e di mezzo il mare" - "there is an ocean between saying and doing". President Obama started his tenure in fifth gear, issuing some bold executive orders dealing with ethics and executive compensation for companies availing themselves of tax payers money. But what about his often-repeated promise of by-partisanism and of doing away with 'business as usual' in Washington?  It is true that he won the election and that a majority of voters favors a departure from the failed policies of then last 8 years; it is true, as well, that what the Republicans are taking issue with items in the stimulus package that amount to a very small percentage of the whole. However, I am starting to doubt his wisdom in chosing Rahm Emanuel, who said, unabashedly, that it is a crime not to take full advantage of a serious crisis. If Obama wants to act quickly and in a by-partisan way to stimulate the economy, his first concern should be to keep House Democrats in line and to tell them clearly that he will not accept any pork in the stimulus bill. $200 million for free condom distribution? This may, indeed, stimulate, but certainly not the economy. Money for Hollywood? I know that many stars have been important supporters but the last thing we need is tax payers money for more maga-pictures, starring overpayed pretty faces. If we want to help the arts, why not help Broadway, where many a show has closed down prematurely during the last few months? The President is not showing the right kind of leadership and is letting the left wing of the Democratic congress set the agenda. Should he keep going down this path, he will find out soon that popularity is fickle and he will be risking to be a one-term wonder.

End Of An Era

We are living the end of an era: an era of non-discriminating deregulation, unchecked greed and a widening income gap, due to the rape of corporate profits by managements. This resulted in the impoverishment of the small shareholder and a reduction of the manufacturing labor force due, in part, to policies aimed at maximizing short-term profits to the detriment of the long-term health of companies. I have long been disgusted by management salaries and bonuses, awarded regardless of results, particularly in the finance business; however, I was shocked when I learned that in 2006 Merrill Lynch distributed in bonuses between $5 and $6 billion of its $7.6 billion profit. To add insult to injury, the profit was an illusion since much of it was unrealized and never realized. This perfect storm we are in is indicative of the total break-down of the system; much time and much pain will be requires to bring us out of this mess. Congress deregulated left and right without understanding what the consequencees would be; the auditing firms that were supposed to sound the alarm whenever a public company was in trouble became the public companies' co-conspirators; the boards of directors, that were supposed to keep management in check, give it long-term guidance and safeguard the interest of the shareholders, whom they are supposed to represent, became puppets of management and kept approving dizzying, unnecessary, unjustified and immoral salary increases and bonuses for the latter; rating companies overlooked obvious flaws insecurities they were greatly overrating; the SEC got caught sleeping on the job and failed to take action against rogue members of the brokerage and money management community, even when provided with clear evidence of their wrong doing; Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac started approving mortgages for lenders who couldn't afford them; the finance sector, using derivatives and securitizing bundled mortgages, created infinite liquidity for itself and literally pushed people to borrow - 125% mortgages were given - and get deeper in debt, penalizing them with absurd default interest rates and fees when they no longer could make timely payments. Now the country is bankrupt. The lower and middle classes are strangled by debt and at risk to lose their homes - those who have not lost them already; industry - not only the automobile industry - is paralyzed and downsizing because of the drop in demand and the difficulty in obtaining financing; retirement accounts have been almost wiped out and we are waiting for Obama to take charge as one waits for the Messiah. But Obama is not the Messiah; there is just so much he can do and he cannot do it very fast. Old regulations will have to be reinstated and new ones added. There should be some limitation to the salaries of executives: they shouldn't be raised in years when a company's revenues and profits have not grown and there should be some proportion between the highest and lowest salary in a company, like there is in Japan; bonuses should be distributed only out of annual earning and be limited to, say, 10% of earnings; share bonuses should not be vested for at least 7 years so that their value may be determined by a company's long-term growth and not by its short-term behavioron the stock ,market and so as to encourage good management to stay with a company, rather than move every few years to join a higher bidder. Auditors should not be allowed to serve companies in any other capacity; theyshould be fined for negligence and closed down if often unreliable. At least two thirds of each board should be independent and the board's mandate should be to act exclusively in the interest of the shareholders; financial institution should be disincentivized from lending money - it's not their money but that of their depositors - in too risky a fashion; finally, a government intent on deregulation should be obliged to carry out an in-depth study of all the possible effects of such deregulation, explain them to the public at large and have a referendum on whether or not to deregulate. These may seem draconian measures but man is, by nature, greedy and, as part of our general social contract, we should have a financial social contract as well. Capitalism is imperfect but is still better than any other system I know of; nonetheless, just as it would be impossible to play Monopoly - or any other game - without rules, so Capitalism as well must have a precise set of rules if it is to function and satisfy - more or less - all strata of society without risking to cause a revolution. We have a lot of rebuilding to do and, hopefully, we will never go back to the excesses of only a few months ago. The rich can get richer without the poor getting poorer; they needn't do it at neck breaking speed and, wwithin a set of well designed rules, Capitalism can thrive very well and it is in everyone's interest that it should. 

If It Seems Too Good To Be True It Usually Is

Just last night I was having dinner with a past executive director of the NYT. We were discussing Obama and his potential and I indicated that, to date, all of Obama's appointments and policy statements coincided precisely with my points of view. That, I said, made me weary and today, finally, I disagreed with his last decision. Arne Duncan may be acceptable to both opposite camps in education and he may have obtained excellent results within the Chicago school system but I believe that what was needed was a clearer message to the Teacher's Union that business as usual was over, that bad teachers would not be allowed to go on teaching and would not be rammed down the throats of Principals for reason of seniority and that huge sums - badly needed for educational purposes - would no longer be wasted to pay full salaries to teachers pulled out of their classes for child molestation and who, instead of being in prison, where they belong, sit on full pay in Department of Education buildings set aside to house them while they do nothing. Maybe an Arne Duncan, less treatening to the TU that a Joel Klein, will be able to obtain more concessions and make more headway in reforming our public education system and the TU; however, if he will not deal enrgetically with the problems at hand, we will be, by the end of Obama's term(s), a third world country as far as education is concerned.

Lucky Obama

Success requires, often, ability and hard work. Nonethless, I have always been convinced that its main ingredient by far is, always, luck. I think that Obama's presidency will be very successful since all the stars seem to be aligning just right for him. By the time he will be sworn in, on January 20th, the economy will be well on its way towards the bottom of the worst recession since the Great Depression; consequently, any President would be governing during four years of recovery, capital growth and reduced unemployment and could expect to be reelected, probably, by a land slide. But Obama, actually, seems to be putting in place an excellent plan and, should it succeed, we may, indeed, be on our way to decreased reliance on oil and availability of economically viable alternative energy sources. We should also have an improved infrastructure, a reasonably regulated finance industry and greatly improved relations with both friends and foe. As the saying goes, you make your own luck and Obama will have to make his; however, the elements for success are there and it will be up to him to make it or break it.

Signed, Sealed and Delivered

One day before Obama's acceptance speech I got off the fence and decided that, although I still had doubts, I would vote for him. Hearing him speak in Denver's Mile High Stadium strengthened my conviction, as he seemed to have his priorities right and looked and sounded Presidential. I still thought I should listen carefully to the debates but, after McCain announced that he had chosen as his running mate Sarah Palin my vote for Obama was signed, sealed and delivered and I feel, somehow, that most independents like me will come to the same conclusion. I have heard Republicans gush that she is highly qualified because she was a basketball standout nicknamed Sarah Barracuda, because she was a hockey mom and president of the PTA and because she was the mayor of a hole-in-the-wall town of 9,000 inhabitants and two years ago was elected - it beats me why - Governor of that very populous state: Alaska. I am certain that Vladimir Putin, Ahmedinejad, Bin Ladin and Hu Jintao are duly impressed and worried and I am so glad and reassured at the thought that, should anything happen to 72-year old McCane, she will be there to represent the U.S.A. What were McCain and his advisers thinking? I thing that rather than be guided by reason they were guided by desperation. Probably, they hope that by being an extreme right winger she will bring out the vote of all the Republican crazies who view McCain as too moderate and by being a woman she will attract the vote of those Hillary supporters who are still upset by her defeat. They may be right in the first instance but I doubt that Democratic, pro-choice women will chose to vote, as a protest, for a pro-life, right wing ticket. As I have already mentioned, it seems certain to me that McCain has chosen to forfeit the independent vote in the hope that die-hard Republicans will bring him to victory. In view of the hundreds of thousands of Democrats newly registered to vote and of the fact that this Republican ticket will be viewd by Democrats as a red cloth by a bull, I think he has taken a huge gamble that may well cost him the election; I sure hope so.

Getting Off the the fence

I have always been an independent and, until today, I couldn't decide whom I would vote for in November. The fact that Obama is Black is a very definite positive: this is a historic moment and what a change from the America I encountered when I first landed here in 1954! However, while I feel with my heart, I think with my head and this is not a sufficient reason to vote for the man. I dread unionism that puts itself ahead of what is best for the nation - like the teacher's union that cares much more about the welfare of its rogue members than about the education of our childern. I find big government expensive and inefficient and it was the Democrats who invented legislating through the Supreme Court. I despise the concept and rethoric of taxing the rich just to attract the votes of multitudes of jealous have-nots: if overdone, it is harmful for the economy as well as for those who are pleased by the concept. Republicans tend to be cheerful and positive while Democrats are, more often than not, grim and negative. I believe that a sane citizen without a criminal record should be allowed, after serious vetting, to own a handgun, a rifle or a shotgun. But how can I vote for a party that favors the free, unchecked purchase of firearms, including assault weapons? The Pilgrims came here to escape persecution and practice their religions in peace. The Founding Father were Deists and advocated the separation of Church and State. How can I vote for a party that wants to turn the United States into a Christian theocracy and to teach our children Creationism rather than the Sciences? How would we compete in this ever more technical world? Finally, Obama has retracted from some of his more extreme and unreasonable early, vote-getting positions. Now he wants to pull out of Iraq responsibly rather than in a cut-and-run fashion. Now his camp seems to indicate that teachers should be accountable and, if necessary, retrained or helped to change career rather than to have a job for life, botching the education of our children. Obama has proven that he is intelligent and flexible while McCain, who may not be as bad as the Democrats paint him, seems frozen in the mirage of a healthy economy and beholden to the certifiably crazy right wing of his party. I don't know whether Obama will be able to deliver; until know all I have heard are encouraging words. However, I must go with hope because, thanks to Bush/Chaney/Rove, we are in a really bad spot and we must try to change our mudus operandi. I am still doubtful about Obama's chances to win the election as I fear that the South is still not ready to vote for a Black President. But I have made up my mind and I hope that the country will give him a chance to show whether or not he can measure up.

VP?

Tom Brokaw last night and Tim Russert this morning were claiming to have heard from a source very close to the Clintons that Hillary wants to barter her 18,000,000 votes for the Vice Presidency. This is either calculated mis-information, or another case of poor fact checking by the media, or Hillary has lost her compass. As Vice President she would become insignificant for the next eight years while there are many pitfalls on this route towards the Presidency. Will she and Barak get elected? If so, will they do a good enough job to be re-elected eight years form now? If so, eight years from now, will the country be ready for eight more years of a Democratic President or will the mood have shifted towards the Republican Party? In the former instance, will or not a new, fresh Democratic face have emerged, capable of giving her a good run for the money? It would be like placing an en plain bid at the roulette table. A much wiser choice, it seems to me, would be to trade her votes for a say on the composition of the platform and on the allocation of government positions. She could then return to the Senate where she could have four - or eight - very productive years to promote her agenda. Although the junior Senator from New York, she has been, already, a very powerful figure in Washington and in four - or eight - more years she could become formidable, the eminance grise  of the Democratic Party and an obvious choice for President. Being on the losing ticket now, or four years from now, would preclude any further ambitions and greatly diminish her legacy. What is everybody smoking?

What Is Justice?

This morning Justice Arthur Cooperman cleared on all counts the three New York City policemen who pumped 50 shots into Sean Bell and two of his friends on the eve of his marriage. Predictably, Bell's family and friends, part of the Black community and the Reverend Al Sharpton are promising civil disobedience. Sharpton cannot be taken seriously. He has been accused in the past of tax evasion, misappropriation of funds and numerous other crimes but all he is is a self-promoting, lying, rabble rouser whom no one has dared to prosecute with determination. But the question that begs to be asked is why 50 shots were fired against three unarmed men. The behaviour of the inebriated victims was, doubtlessly, suspicious and the main prosecution witnesses were deemed not believable by the judge, but wouldn't a few unanswered shots been sufficient? It is understandable that, when faced by suspected criminals policemen are afraid for their lives and tend to overreact but I believe that better training and procedural guidelines would prevent such extreme behaviour. We must accept the judge's decision which was probably the right one under the circumstances. However, I hope that the Poilce Department will investigate impartially the incident and take the proper disciplinary actions against the three shooters whom I do not think can remain in the employ of the Police. There is no question that Police abuse has occurred often and still occurs regularly, more often than not against Blacks. The Bell case cannot be made into a racial one since all the victims and two of the three shooters were Black. However, policemen can operate safely and efficiently only if the community trusts them and incidents like the Bell shooting erode whatever trust there is still in the Police. Neither civil disobedience nor a political verdict by a Federal Court will provide justice. The Police Department must carry out a through investigation, punish whoever deserves it and make whatever procedural changes are necessary to ensure that similar incidents will not happen again.

Another Eight Years?

It's the political spectacle of the 21st century: with it's two strongest candidates since John Fitzgerald Kennedy the Democratic party is well on its way to lose the impending Presidential election. At this stage of the game John McCain is likely to prevail, by default, against either Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton. Obama and Clinton have created this situation by neutralizing each other and polarizing their party. Obama's weaknesses are obvious. Some of the middle-aged white women supporters of Clinton - certainly only a fraction those who say now that they wouldn't vote for him - will not vote for him; I believe that, alone with themselves in the voting boot, numerous white, Southern Decmocrats will not vote for a Black for President; Obama is too left-wing liberal for most Independent voters and they'll go with McCain. Clinton would lose the vote of the most hard-core Obama supporters and many Democrats hate her too much. Both will lose a few percentage points to Ralph Nader. The only Democratic ticket certain to win would be Clinton-Obama since Obama-Clinton will never happen. He can easily swallow his disappointment and wait eight years to be President but this is her only shot and, should she lose, she would be much better off as an ever more powerful U.S. Senator than as a marginalized Vice-President. McCain is no prize but I don't think that Obama can win and a Clinton candidacy would energize every last Republican to go out and vote. Unless the Domocrats want to lose again, they better tell Obama that it is time to quit and Clinton that she must make him part of the ticket.