There is something not quite right in how things are being forced to happen. Living outside of the country and therefore free of Fox news and the usual political rhetoric that one enjoys with a home town newspaper, I have been slow at understanding how due process is being side-stepped.
A few weeks ago my level-headed brother and I were talking about his move to recent Texas. He lamented very lightly the fact that his boss was a staunch Republican. I immediately on the bandwagon with a bit of gusto on the insanity of their whole movement … until my brother pointed out that actually there are times when they have a point. For example, how Obama went about rescuing of the automobile sector was very worrisome and he hoped it was a not a trend to come.
Specifically, there are times when the markets are right, legal due process is fair and the externalities of decisions must be taken into account. The state of the US automotive industry is due to bad management, competitive markets (sorry – but people have a right to buy better vehicles at lower prices) and a strong legal union rightly afraid what bankruptcy would spell for its members.
I look at the Chrysler bailout and Obama’s text regarding his outlined deal
“While many stakeholders made sacrifices and worked constructively, I have to tell you some did not. In particular, a group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout. They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices, and they would have to make none. Some demanded twice the return that other lenders were getting. I don’t stand with them. I stand with Chrysler’s employees and their families and communities. I stand with Chrysler’s management, its dealers, and its suppliers. I stand with the millions of Americans who own and want to buy Chrysler cars. I don’t stand with those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices. And that’s why I’m supporting Chrysler’s plans to use our bankruptcy laws to clear away its remaining obligations so the company can get back on its feet and onto a path of success.”
I struggle to see how an investment company’s legal obligation to look out for their own shareholders (such as the small person with a pension invested in one of the above funds that happen to be invested in Chrysler) can be so misconstrued as evil is worded in the above text. I hands down lean towards socialism as my own political ideology, but there is a limit where something is a pure drain on the economy. So I find it ironic accordingly that Obama names using fair use of bankruptcy laws, when he just overruled the investors due legal right in bankruptcy court? This kind of behaviour reminds me of a Bushism.
Now to health care. Having been fortunate to live in a few countries with state healthcare – I think I have an idea of the cost benefit analysis as well as some core sustainability qualities. When I moved for example to Germany back in the 80s, the country practically offered noholdbar free and quality healthcare. I had to have tumour in my abdomen I even had a plastic surgeon stitch me up and I thankfully have no scares!
Germany realized that it could not afford to keep this system going and while I am not too sure how the ins and outs of how the new system works – I do know when I worked there for a year in 2000 that both my company and I had to top up my state insurance and I was given a whole array of bells and whistles, excesses to choose from. Legally what I paid was still part of the state system, its just that I had to cover it myself – but the costs were still very manageable as I would imagine they adequately subsidized. Plus, there were healthy economic practices inbedded – such as a bonus for non-usage to decrease the problematic free-rider principle (e.g. someone runs to the doctor for every ache and pain) that plagues state systems.
As I now live in the UK, I can hands-down say that I LOVE my NHS (give me a button and a whistle please). It is though not perfect and its hugely costly. The quality of care is lower than Germany was for example, and the moral of the story is that while both are state funded … the devil is the detail … and Obama seems to be missing this. Undoubtedly its insane how much money US Healthcare providers make funding other people’s misery, which in my books just wrong. However good change management theory is about communication, debate and analysis. I find that this whole healthcare plan is being PUSHED and anyone who points that or disagrees with components seems to be deemed un-American . Somehow that sounds a lot like what happened post-911 and when people like me protested to the war in Iraq. Maybe someone actually needs to start talking to those heckling the townhall meetings to see if the have anything of value to say instead of levying pure criticism in their direction. I had to admit that I desperately want the US to have state healthcare, but I also want it to be sustainable. In its current form – through my experience in Germany for example – it won’t be. And to me failure in the medium-term is a bigger risk than doing better research and analysis and having a truly fair stakeholder consultation to find a structure that works decently.
All I am asking for democracy to work, for us to have a good and fair debate (even if we don’t quite like we hear). Else Obama’s government is starting to show qualities of Bush’s regime … and they are not good ones.
Obama is not who he said he was…one of the largest expenditures is to continue the war footing Bush started, to wit:
“Defense orders are up 14.8%, again putting a fork in the Democrat/Liberal dreams of Obama pulling back on the military. Nope. This is a consistent trend since the beginning of his administration – he’s a big-military guy folks, despite what you may have wished. Welcome to reality; defense was the only year/over/year positive change.” Ken Denniger, The Market Ticker
Frankly, I am neither Repub or Demo…both suck in my opinion. They work for corporate interests, not mine. This whole idea of “ism’s” doesn’t work historically at all…we need a new paradigm.
Hmmm …
I don’t think I would agree that Obama is a big miltary man but I don’t have numbers like you do (the source would be helpful). I do know that stopping a war is a very difficult task. Plus, if you decrease investment too quickly, you likely put those soliders still involved in danger because of lack of equipment or manpower. Basically my verdict is still very much out on that one as I still have hopes (its not even quite been a year since he took power).
That said, I will disagree that Obama is putting corporate interest ahead of ours because the examples I put forward actually are radically anti-corporate. Investors get scupered, health companies will have to toe the line or else.
Its the dialogue that is missing, which is part of the paradigm I had hoped for with his election. That is problem.
I’ve voted for a third party now for several years. Despite what Republicans and Democrats say they stand for…they have one huge thing in common: big government.
“Maybe someone actually needs to start talking to those heckling the townhall meetings to see if the have anything of value to say instead of levying pure criticism in their direction.”
The problem is that those heckling are not allowing freedom of speech to go both ways. They are not listening at all. I have seen my own congressman unable to get more than 10 words out before being heckled. Those people don’t want to listen to anything he says, whether it’s correct or not. They want to yell and scream.
Dialogue goes both ways.
Ken Denniger, The Market Ticker is the source.
I see your point – about healthy democratic dialogue to ensure that incredibly important new initiatives, like publicly funded health-care are debated and discussed appropriately.
A few years ago I was invited to Ohio for a conference on “deliberative democracy” – where we all looked at what it would mean for a democracy to actually be ‘deliberative’. One of the interesting ideas was a model for ‘deliberative dialogue’ a new form of public discussion that promoted more listening and deliberation and less arguing and heckling. The topic they used to model the approach was the issue of public health care and it was fascinating to see people discussing the topic in a truely deliberative manner – weighing pros and cons of each different approach rather than arguing different positions.
Sounds like that model’s moment may have come?
Marianne – Absolutely. And I guess on some level I am shocked to see Obama not embrace such an approach. Maybe I expected too much? He though is a community organizer …
Plus, I really don’t get the feeling that what is being proposed has been economically vetted appropriately? I may be very wrong there as I am not part of his administration and so much is likely still up in the air. It does though feel like a full-fledged health care system is being discussed and there are plenty of countries that have proven its a difficult one sustain.
Surprising!
I must admit to being quite shocked when I saw the title of this post. I am a Texan and I laughed at the description of your conversation with your brother – we really don’t mind. 🙂 I am also neither liberal nor socialist – only this week did I work up the courage to fully come out of the political closet on my own blog – as a conservative/Independent/almost Libertarian, as I put it. (Conservatism is the new gay.) I’d hinted before, but my past experiences admitting I was not an Obama supporter had brought me nothing but unfair charges of racism & hatred, so I’d remained silent.
Many of us are against government health care reform (in addition to the auto industry takeover, etc., etc.) because neither the President nor Congress has the Constitutional authority for any of their proposals. It is really that simple.
Also – what many people seem to miss/ignore is that the recent town hall meetings and the anger of some of those attending are duplicates of 2005, when Republicans were yelled at; back then it was considered the patriotic thing to do. Now not so much. Now it is politically incorrect – Obama must not be questioned. It is that that I find quite scary.
Although we disagree politically, I am impressed and heartened to find someone with courage enough to question our president. So glad to find your blog.
Debi
A Liberatian! My lands … you exist (smile). I have friends like you. Acutally one in particular who I think has 4 Harvard degress and lets just say our discussions can be pretty heated. And its kind of ironic that we know each other from our time in Eastern Europe, where I felt I was trying to heal good elements of Socialism, while just wanted all the evil factors of capitalism. What a time.
Seriously though, I do think we have a moral role to take care of each other. So I really do want a state healthcare and on some level think the goverenment has a right to qusetion how healthcare companies function, especially if they are making life or dealth decisions. When does business come into whether someone’s son will live or die? It makes no legal or ethical sense! Its the ‘how’ or as Marianne put it the ‘deliberative dialogue’ (or lack of) I am disappointed about.
And well I am sure there are SOME nice people in Texas. Smile.
Well, not a true Libertarian – I think the government has some responsiblities – defense & keeping up the infrastructure.
I agree that we have somewhat of a moral role to take care of one another – I don’t, however, believe the federal government has a role to do so. What states decide to do is up to the taxpayers of each state. I have a friend in San Francisco who took up the cause of a woman who’d been shot by her husband and left homeless with 2 children and an infant. There was no agency in the state to help her. There were a lot of reasons why, but in the end the woman was helped by individuals via the blogging world. And then, a bit ago, here in my hometown, a virtually identical situation arose I watched the story on tv, amazed at the different response. Within one day, the woman here had a place to stay, food, financial help, clothing, etc., etc. because we have church charity organizations who don’t wait for the government, who, in fact, believe they SHOULD help. All my friends give time and/or money to different charities – this town is an stopping point for hurricane evacuees; we always help.
During Hurricane Katrina, I was disheartened by the gov’t response – on all levels, I don’t single out Bush. (The mayor of New Orleans refused school buses that were sent to evacuate people because he felt they deserved Greyhounds; unbelievable!) I was also, however, heartbroken at the people who EXPECTED the gov’t to help, so did nothing to help themselves. As a country we should be ashamed to have allowed such a mindset to occur. It was horrible – people relied on the gov’t, had no self-help skills, and paid the ultimate price. It was a huge eye-opener for me. Already an Independent, that is when I began to lean a bit towards Libertarianism.
It is so nice to meet you! So nice to have a civil conversation. And no, I don’t expect you to think like me! LOL!
Thank you for a bit of humanity in the midst of craziness!
🙂 Debi