Values and healthcare reform

Some thoughts.

Read more...

Obama answers question on Pittsburgh G20 protesters

Obama's comments on the protests, from the transcript of the G20 press conference (NYT):

Jon Delano of KDKA. Is Jon around?

Q: Right here.

THE PRESIDENT: Good to see you, Jon.

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Let me ask you, while we were inside this very safe and secure and beautiful convention center, some 5,000 at least demonstrators were on the outside. Some caused some property damage; others just shouted their messages, much of which had to do that while you believe the G20 summit was a success and represents a positive sign, they see it as something devilish and destructive of the world economy, and particularly the economy of the poor. What's your response to those who are demonstrating and those who oppose this summit?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I think it's important just to keep things in perspective for the people of Pittsburgh. If you have looked at any of the other summits that took place, I mean, in London you had hundreds of thousands of people on the streets. In most of these summits, there has been a much more tumultuous response. And I think the mayor and the county executive and all the people of Pittsburgh deserve extraordinary credit for having managed what is a very tranquil G20 summit.

You know, I think that many of the protests are just directed generically at capitalism. And they object to the existing global financial system. They object to free markets. One of the great things about the United States is, is that you can speak your mind and you can protest; that's part of our tradition. But I fundamentally disagree with their view that the free market is the source of all ills.

Ironically, if they had been paying attention to what was taking place inside the summit itself, what they would have heard was a strong recognition from the most diverse collection of leaders in history that it is important to make sure that the market is working for ordinary people; that government has a role in regulating the market in ways that don't cause the kinds of crises that we've just been living through; that our emphasis has to be on more balanced growth, and that includes making sure that growth is bottom up, that workers, ordinary people, are able to pay their bills, get -- make a decent living, send their children to college; and that the more that we focus on how the least of these are doing, the better off all of us are going to be. That principle was embodied in the communique that was issued.

And so I would recommend those who are out there protesting, if they're actually interested in knowing what was taking place here, to read the communique that was issued.

My thoughts on Obama's statement here.

Read more...

Is an American citizen now a political prisoner in Burma?

AP reports that

US Embassy spokesman Drake Weisert said officials were allowed to visit Kyaw Zaw Lwin on Sunday and have since contacted his family. He had a visa to visit the country, but it is unclear why he traveled to Yangon.

Dissident groups have said the Maryland-based Kyaw Zaw Lwin arrived in Yangon on Sept. 3 and has not been heard from since. It is not known why the junta detained him, but many of his family members have been held over the years for their pro-democracy activities.

Kyaw Zaw Lwin's mother is serving a five-year jail term while his sister was sentenced to 65 years in prison for her role in pro-democracy protests two years ago.

More about Burma's 2,000 political prisoner's here.

Read more...

Senator Tom Carper's ethics

UPDATED
 The Obama Administration cut a secret backroom deal with pharmaceutical companies.   Fearful of a public outcry, some Congressional Democrats are distancing themselves from the deal.  But not Sen. Carper:

Senator Tom Carper, Democrat of Delaware, warned that it would be unethical for Democrats to back away from the agreement with the drug industry, which was reached by top White House officials working closely with the Finance Committee chairman, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana.

“This is not the way that I would like to be treated,” Mr. Carper said. ‘Whether you like PhRMA or not, we have a deal.”

"(T)he Delaware Democrat has raised $238,460 from health insurers alone since 2000, and $341,464 from pharmaceutical companies" according to Open Secrets.

Even if American taxpayers would be getting a bad deal, it's considered "ethical" for a US senator to remain loyal to the corporate executives who fund his campaigns.

Perhaps that's why these senators call themselves "blue dogs."  They are loyal to their master.
___
Suggested reading for Sen. Carper:  Constitutional topic: Checks and balances. Under the US system, the legislative branch has the final say on any deals cut by the executive branch involving money.   Is it  unethical for a senator to fulfill his responsibilities under the Constitution?
Photo:  Blue dogs Baucus, Carper, Grassely.   See this post to read about my visit to the Blue Dog House.

Read more...

Missile defense: Who betrayed who?

A CBS News headline exclaims "East European officials: US betrayed us."   Why do the tantrums of foreign political leaders make headline news, but not the reaction of American taxpayers -- the people who funded this Bush Administration give-away to a powerful corporate lobby?  Who was really betrayed by missile defense?   How about the people who wrote the check for it?

Now that the Obama administration has scrapped the original plans, officials in the host countries who had supported the program at huge political costs feel betrayed.

"They're thinking we've been sold out," Crowley said. "They're so upset that in Poland they didn't even take the phone call from Hillary Clinton at first. They're very upset at the Obama administration [thinking] 'We went out on a limb.'" 

Am I missing something?    Do Americans care about the "political cost" paid by some politician in Warsaw more than they care about the "actual cost" of the program to taxpayers like themselves?    What moral obligation do Americans have to pay for Poland's defense anyway?*   I suspect the most significant thing Poland pays for is Washington lobbyists -- and possibly the PR firms that have helped the corporate American news media to "report" this kind of news.
___
*Interestingly, Poland and the United States are probably the two Western countries where religious conservatives have the greatest influence over policy decisions.  

Read more...

Missile nonsense from the New York Times

In an editorial right out of the Cold War, the editors of the New York Times assume their readers share so many of their own lazy assumptions it makes you wonder why they bothered to write anything at all. 

"President Obama made a sound strategic decision, scrapping former President George W. Bush’s technologically dubious plan to build a long-range missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Instead, the Pentagon will deploy a less-ambitious — but more feasible — system of interceptors and sensors, first on ships and later on land."

Here are some quotes from the editorial (my response in italics):

1. ".... managing the diplomacy — particularly the disappointment of the Central Europeans — and the politics in this country will require a very deft hand."    Who cares what these countries think?   Are they paying for the program?  How about asking what US taxpayers want?   And how does missile defense actually make Americans any safer?
2. "Neither Poland nor the Czech Republic was ever worried about Iran or particularly committed to the need for missile defense. What they fear is Russia."  From the perspective of the Central Europeans, the program is about stopping Russia
3. "The complaints in Washington are already at least as fierce — and a lot more disingenuous. Missile defense has long been an article of faith and politics, more than reason, for many Republicans."     The 'complaints' of people on the left and right who don't believe in missile defense expenditures don't matter to the New York Times.
4. "Mr. Obama will meet in New York next week with President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia. He must make clear that this decision is not a payoff for Moscow’s bullying — and that an improved relationship will depend on Russia’s willingness to treat its neighbors and its people better."  Vague challenges will produce nothing but laughter.   Why don't you explain EXACTLY what you want from Russia?
   
5. "We never believed Moscow’s claims that the Bush system posed a threat to its thousands of highly sophisticated missiles. The Russians repeated it so often that they may have begun to persuade themselves."  Maybe Russia just doesn't want armed enemies on its borders. 
6. "The president’s critics are right on one point: The Russians will be watching him closely for any signs of weakness. Mr. Obama must be prepared to press Mr. Medvedev hard on all of these issues." Translation:  Obama already "looks weak."

Read more...

Presidential address tonight on health care

My immediate reflection after having live-blogged the entire presidential address to Congress on health care:

Obama delivered a speech that was largely about values.  Obama presented an expanded vision of American values; it includes concern for others, it affirms a constructive role for government in protecting the weak and ensuring fairness.  Obama explained that this tradition is as much a part of American heritage as free enterprise and individualism.   Obama has aligned the health care debate with a debate about American values.

In so doing, Obama may have successfully shifted the discussion tonight from one that had been mainly about people's fears to a discussion more centered on peoples' hopes and aspirations.  Obama was also correct to warn the country about the dangers of allowing intolerance and negativity to poison the debate.  Although we don't know what will come of this approach, it matters that Obama has attempted to re-frame the discussion.

You further commentary, including my own summary of the speech here.

Read more...