Best Of
Links
Categories
Archives
Search
Subscribe
To those seeking my vote:
I don’t want a tax cut. The American tax burden is at the lowest rate it’s been in years. There are services I want from my government: lower class sizes, better transit, and more people with healthcare, and I am willing to pay for them. What I don’t want to see is an increase in the debt.
I don’t want you to promise to repeal Obamacare. This may be judgmental, but when I hear someone mention “Obamacare,” I wonder if the person has thought through these issues. To me, the term “Obamacare” suggests the worst of talk radio, punditry, hype, politics for politics sake, perhaps even hatred. Also, the term “Obamacare” is misleading. Healthcare is not Obama’s baby. There were a lot of us who believed something had to be done about healthcare long before Obama came along. I am not happy with the healthcare reform that passed Congress, but I don’t believe the solution is to get government out of healthcare. The solution is for us to demand that our representatives structure our government’s involvement better.
Although I consider myself conservative, I don’t want my representative to be the conservative voice on every issue every time. Conservative is not a synonym for right or good. I want my representative to make the best possible decision every time. I want her to be a voice for what is right, for what is good, for the powerful and for the powerless. If these decisions and opportunities coincide with conservatism, then great. If something else, then great. The label isn’t important, the thinking is.
I do want a simpler tax code. For the most part, government should avoid behavioral engineering. However, although a national sales tax would be simple, it would also be regressive. The wealthiest Americans currently bear the largest part of the tax burden by far, and it should stay that way.
I do want lower debt. It is wrong to sell our children into bondage tomorrow to pay for the governmental largesse we enjoy today. Every spending and taxing decision must be measured against this yardstick. There aren’t many things we can afford to do on borrowed money.
I do want a representative who understands where money comes from. Government agencies don’t grow the economy, businesses do. Business is not the enemy. Business is not a necessary evil. Business is the source of the nation’s economic power.
I was surprised by the degree to which attendance felt like a statement of belief or even a commitment. It was a bit intimidating. As I approached the door someone (a friend, actually) challenged me and said, “Are you here because you are really a Republican or because you just wanted to come to our caucus?” Good question. I told him that if I belonged at either caucus it was more the Republican one. But on reflection, I don’t know. I would love to run for public office someday, but one of the things holding me back (besides not enjoying the appropriate type of extroversion in group settings) will be my inability to say, “As a lifelong Democrat . . .” or “As a lifelong Republican. . .” The truth is, the labels don’t fit that well. Also, I have been surprised by how much they vary from location to location. When I lived in Texas, I attended a Republican caucus and discovered that I was not a Republican. In California, I discovered that I was not a Democrat. Now in Utah . . . can’t I just be a person who thinks carefully about the issues and strives to be well-informed? Can’t I just be someone who thinks Bob Bennett has done a pretty good (not great) job and that seniority is an important issue? No–not if I want to have a voice.
One thing that bothered me in the caucus I attended tonight was that the precinct chair suggested that it would be unethical to run as a county or state delegate unless one accepted the county Republican platform in its entirety. [Is this true? I hope not. Please someone tell me chapter and verse of why it's not]. I am curious as to whether he made liars out of those candidates. Did all of them accept every point in the platform? I couldn’t have. Among other issues, I am not a fan of “consumer choice in education.” The platform seemed to be clearly pro-voucher [I didn't study the platform carefully though, it was read aloud to us] and while I believe that parents should be able to choose where they send their children, I believe the government has a proper interest in directing its limited resources towards public schools and education for citizenship. I suspect I wouldn’t be able to endorse every point in the Democratic platform either.
The turnout tonight was fabulous. Apparently people were riled up by healthcare and channeled their feelings into caucus attendance. Two years ago there were 25, tonight there were 75. One problem was that that meant there were a lot of newbies (including me–I can’t figure out where I was two years ago). For those of us rusty on Robert’s Rules of order, things started happening awfully fast. Before we knew it, the precinct chair and vice-chair had been chosen–running almost unopposed and having offered no explanation of their philosophy as delegates. That made sense because it had been explained that the chair and vice-chair were not automatically delegates. Then, after the vote it was discovered that the chairs automatically serve as delegates so suddenly rather than 5 county delegates to elect, we had only 3, and instead of 2 state delegates, we had only 1. That was a big disappointment.
I enjoyed hearing from the candidates for county delegate. I asked a lot of questions. I hope this was not too annoying to my neighbors, but as I saw that I did not have a future as a delegate, I thought a good use of my time was determining who would be a good delegate to vote for. Only 2 or 3 candidates out of 8 were informed about anything going on in the state legislature. When pressed on issues, 4 candidates mentioned that they were for stricter immigration controls. It was another moment that made me wonder whether I had caucused in the right place. Is there room in the big tent for me? I liked the part of the Republican platform that mentioned the word “humane” in connection with immigration reform.
I was disappointed in the run-up to the vote for state delegates. Someone made a motion to limit the candidate statements for state delegate to two minutes. [It was getting late!] It was promptly seconded and passed. Before I attend the next caucus, I am going to figure out how to delay a vote on a motion in order to have a discussion on it. It made no sense that we heard from our county delegate candidates at length and were able to ask them questions but only heard two minutes from our state delegate candidates. It was the hope of electing good state delegates that brought me to the caucus so this was a real disappointment. Next time, I think I would like to make a motion that state delegates be elected before county delegates. If we are going to run out of time for debate, let’s skimp on the county delegates, not the state delegates.
On Bob Bennett: of the seven candidates for state delegate, only one suggested that he would likely vote for Bennett. The others were committed to “new blood” to greater and lesser degrees. I assumed that this meant that the sole pro-Bennett candidate would survive to run in the run-off election we held, because the other six would split the anti-Bennett vote. However, he did not; he was defeated. If my precinct is representative (and I don’t know that it is) Bennett should be very, very concerned about his prospects at the May convention.
Added later: Here is a NYTimes article that describes Senator Bennett’s situation well. I fear getting a senator more conservative than Bennett. What would that mean?
There is a new senator in Massachusetts. He is Republican. It hasn’t happened since 1972. Martha Coakley was supposed to be a sure thing. She wasn’t. I have been trying to figure out what I think about this. I posted something about it on Facebook and thought it was interesting to see my friends–some extremely conservative, some much, much more liberal–line up on opposite sides of the fence. Apparently, either Coakley’s defeat and Brown’s election is an answer to prayer or it is a sign that we didn’t pray hard enough.
I find that I am not of one mind. I can’t celebrate the election of someone who supports waterboarding as an interrogation technique and opposes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. It is hard to feel happy to see the chances for more Americans to enjoy health coverage decrease. On the other hand, I didn’t like the looks of the “reform” bills coming out of the House and Senate. While these bills accomplished things that were important to me, (for example, no denials based on pre-existing conditions and healthcare extended to more people) they seemed to do it the wrong way. Where are the promised cost savings? How will these plans be sustainable in the long term given ever rising medical costs? How will we pay for it? I am frightened and appalled by our massive debt and deficits.
Unfortunately, the healthcare reform I favor–public option and rationing at a minimum and hopes for single payer in the future–isn’t politically possible. The question becomes: if we can’t do healthcare right, is it best to do it wrong and try to fix things later or is it better to stick with the status quo? Without healthcare coverage, many Americans are suffering greatly today. With massive debt and a messed up health care system, we will all suffer in the future. Being realistic about what is possible politically, which way is best? I don’t know. That’s why I don’t know what to think about Scott Brown.
I do know that I was surprised to see the citizens of Massachusetts ( supposedly a U.S. model for universal healthcare coverage) vote as they did. I need to learn more about why.
Do you subscribe to your local newspaper? I have not in many years, but I think it may be time to start. Recently, we went to pick up a babysitter, and her father asked whether we were going to see the big game. We asked, “What game?” Pdad and I understood his reply to mean that the game was BYU v. Utah (a very big game–but we learned the next day that it was actually BYU v. USU–not nearly as big). We marveled that it could be the day of the big game without any sliver of awareness from either of us. It was disturbing. Not because we are missing out on community sports–we are accustomed to this and are comfortable with it. However, being unaware of when the big game was to be played seemed to be the classic canary in a coal mine warning experience. Can someone who is unaware of when the big game is to be played be well prepared to vote in local elections? Is someone unaware of tomorrow’s likely weather getting the information useful to her life?
Benefits of Subscribing to the Newspaper: Voting is so important (excuse the earnestness, but I wrote my dissertation on what it means to be an excellent citizen, and I can’t help it!). However, only informed voting is worth the effort. In the weeks preceding the election I can cram, trying to get as much information as possible from campaign blogs and websites, but undoubtedly the clearest and best answer to whether the incumbents need to be thrown out or thanked and returned arises from following local events more frequently than once every year or two.
And that is where I have fallen down. I can talk about Afghanistan, health care, the public option and the deficit. I know the situations of Somalia, Iran, and Pakistan, but I am much fuzzier as to the fiscal health of the city or the intentions of my city council members.
And it isn’t just that. It is a personal, daily life benefit as well. It isn’t just my citizen quotient that the newspaper would help. Newspapers are useful, aren’t they? When a friend became a fan of the local health department on Facebook, I discovered that the H1N1 vaccine was already available in my area. Would I have known that had I read the paper? And when I saw a block-long line for the vaccine, I eagerly turned to the lcoal newspaper’s website that evening, hoping that they had snapped that surprising picture. They had. The New York Times helps me understand why it is important for me to get the vaccine. The local paper lets me know when it will be possible.
Problems with receiving the newspaper:
1) Mess and disorganization. My children will unfold it. They will scatter it. I won’t stay on top of recycling. Old newspaper will build up and clutter the house.
2) I already spend too much internet time reading news. Whatever time I can carve out for newspaper reading is time I do not yet see I have. Newspaper reading time could squeeze out more important priorities.
Your thoughts? Do you get the newspaper: Yes/No? Why? What do you do about the mess and lack of time issues? Do you see other advantages and disadvantages to newspaper subscription than the ones I mentioned?
But not mine?!
On the radio I just heard that some people are concerned about President Obama’s plan to address public school children next Tuesday. I thought, well, there’s always a minority with strong and vocal views. And then, at almost the same moment, I came across a note from Amelia’s school. They do not plan to show the speech to the children. Their first reason makes sense, they don’t have the bandwidth to stream it without interruption. Their second reason left me incredulous:
This will [also] give us a chance to review the speech so we can select segments that would tie directly to our curriculum. If we do decide to show a clip in the future, parents will be notified to give their permission or to have their student participate in an alternative assignment.
“If we do decide”? You’ve got to be kidding!
[I should not be blogging because I am still so stirred up, but I just can't help it.] This is something that I don’t understand at all. Perhaps some of my more conservative readers could explain this to me, because I can’t make sense of it. My child’s school needs to preview the speech in which the President is scheduled to “challenge students to work hard, set education goals, and take responsibility for their learning” because this may or may not tie in with their curriculum? I have a suggestion: [Such-and-Such] Elementary if you find something about “challenging students to work hard, set education goals, and take responsibility for their learning” that does not tie in with your curriculum, then consider changing your curriculum!
Also, am I to understand that the principal and teachers at my daughter’s school, who are completely unelected are going to substitute their judgment for that of our elected President? Now I understand that a lot of people feel education decisions need to be made at the local level, but this is ridiculous.
Apparently, there’s still the possibility that they will show a “clip” in the future. The entire speech is only twenty minutes! I wonder, does my daughter’s school plan to pre-review the local sports teams that will visit during assemblies this year? Will they edit those presentations for what ties directly to the curriculum? Or perhaps local sports stars have more legitimacy than the President of the United States?
I am shocked and saddened. I really like my daughter’s teacher, but to me this episode is a huge black mark on my view of her new school. On Tuesday, I will be keeping her home to watch the President’s speech. And Duncan’s school? I am calling the principal to ask his plans.
Updated to Add: I spoke with Duncan’s principal. His elementary school (same school district as Amelia’s elementary school) is going to show the speech to all of their 2nd-6th graders. They are allowing parents to attend the presentation with their children if they wish or to opt out and have their children do some other supervised activity. Since there is such a controversy, I think the school is probably doing the right thing. On the other hand, I think it’s ridiculous. They won’t be sending opt out notices for the rest of the assemblies they have this year. And the other outside groups coming won’t be offering them a transcript of remarks ahead of time either.
The principal thanked me and sounded very grateful that I had called. Apparently, he had been talking to people who do not believe the speech should be shown at school before he talked to me and was glad to talk to someone who didn’t think he was doing the wrong thing. It is important not to be silent, even if you agree with the position your school is taking.
Robin asked what I think of mandatory health insurance. My reply was so lengthy that I decided to copy it here.
Mandatory health insurance is important.
1) All of us who have health insurance and all of us who seek treatment at the hospital are subsidizing those who do not have insurance–regardless of whether they’ve chosen to spend their money on other things or if they simply couldn’t afford it. We aren’t talking about pennies. This is subsidy on a grand scale. However, it isn’t a logical and carefully targeted subsidy. (If I end up in the hospital this year and you don’t, does it make sense that I should take a greater share of subsidizing the insuranceless than you should, just because you happened to avoid the hospital this year? No.)
2) We should provide a basic level of health care for everyone. It is a shame for a nation with the resources ours has not to provide a basic level of health care for its people. Without health, it is difficult to pursue happiness and it is also difficult to contribute to society.
3) If we do provide basic health care to everyone, then everyone should help bear the costs. No young, “I feel immortal,” risk-taking freeloaders allowed. Because the fact is, we don’t want to leave even young and stupid, risk-taking freeloaders to suffer, taking their potential with them, if a basic level of health care could allow us to avoid that.
4) Therefore, if we continue under the current insurance-based system (as it now seems obvious we will) everyone should be required to carry insurance. Unfortunately, we will have to figure out how to help many people pay for this, because we can’t require insurance if it means people end up going without their groceries to pay for it. But how to pay for those more explicit subsidies is another bucket of worms . . .
Other recent C&G posts about health care:
American Health Care (the comments are worth reading also)
Sketchy Thoughts on Health Care
Did you write your senators and congressperson yet?
Don’t put it off. It is fun and the health care issue is worth it. Start by finding out what your representatives believe about health care already. Just google the name of your senator or the name of your state and the word “senator.” The official websites will pop right up. Usually, there is an “issues” tab. Read all about it! What is your man or woman in Washington up to? What does he or she have to say about health care? Do you agree or disagree? Or do you need to learn more before you can decide?
My congressperson is, in my humble opinion, a conservative loon. And I say this as a person who is in many respects conservative (true, despite my surprising advocacy for single payer health care). I wrote to ask him why health care wasn’t even listed as one of the issues on his website. I had to recheck that just now to make sure it was true. Yep, no health care under the issues tab. Wow. So I sent him an e-mail asking him why it isn’t there. No response so far. But my conscience felt unburdened. I gave him some reasons why a conservative ought to support health care reform (see this article on why health insurance should not be tied to employment). I let him know that amongst his conservative constituency, there are plenty of us who care about health care and would like him to tune in.
The importance of health care is difficult to overstate. Lives, health, happiness, the budget, and our children’s future is at stake. Even though I don’t delude myself in thinking that a stray e-mail will change a senator or congressperson’s vote, I still want to be counted. I want my representatives to know the views of the people they represent, including me. I want them to know that their citizen constituency is paying attention. Lobbyists have their place. But it is wrong if the only people our representatives hear from are AMA, health insurance industry and pharmaceutical lobbyists. They need to hear from us too. If it makes sense to vote, it makes sense to spend 5 minutes e-mailing your representative. Do it now!
I am suffering from brain block. My brain block started with the desire to write something super comprehensive and well-informed about health care. But that isn’t possible right now.
So instead, here is what I’ve figured out so far: a) I support a public plan (But it does matter what the details are. There are a lot of ways a public plan could go wrong and then it would be worse to have one than not to have one) for exactly the reason its enemies are against it. A public plan could get us closer to single payer.
Unfortunately, a public plan is probably off the table, politically speaking. Single Payer (my true ideal) is definitely off the table. (If single payer scares you, consider that–as others have pointed out–Medicare, for all its warts and it has them!, is a public plan where the government is the single payer. Consider where our elderly population was before Medicare. Do you want to rewind? I don’t.)
So–
Despite current political realities (single payer and public plan being on hold), I still believe we must do something about health care and soon. But if the number crunchers who studied the plan currently on the table in Congress are trustworthy, and there really is no cost savings (!) from the plan they’ve been considering, then we can’t go with that plan. No cost savings = disaster. We can’t move forward until we figure out how to pay for this. We need to cut health care costs and find additional sources of revenue to pay for it.
I’m not sure what we should do instead of what is currently on the table given that there is no public appetite for the best fixes. The health care coops might work–depending on the details, of course.
So, I am still reading and thinking about health care and probably will be for a long time.
Health Care Reading Recommendation: I found the material on health care at FreshThinking.org super helpful. I especially appreciated their links to the articles on Why Tie Health Insurance to a Job? in the Wall Street Journal and the article in the Washington Post on the 5 Myths about our Ailing Health Care System.
It is time for every American citizen to tune in to the healthcare debate. Inform yourself and then seek to inform and persuade others. The issue is huge and the outcome is unclear. Millions of our neighbors have no health insurance. Healthcare costs rise every year and there is no end in sight. Bankruptcy through medical catastrophe is commonplace. The rising cost of care means that fewer people get jobs and fewer people with jobs get insurance.
President Obama is right. We cannot do nothing. As scary as change is, and as problem-fraught as some of the proposals for change are, we simply cannot stay with the status quo. We have an obligation to those with whom we share our soil, and if we are wise, even those of us who now have good insurance realize that our own security hangs in the balance.
Unfortunately, fixing our broken system will not be easy. It certainly isn’t as easy as electing the right person. It doesn’t matter if that person is Obama or McCain or Max Baucus or Mitt Romney, or fill in any name you like. Providing healthcare for those who need it is a difficult and complex problem. Solutions will not be cheap, they will not come without sacrifice, and they will not always be comfortable.
The progress medicine has made in the past fifty years is miraculous. Consider heart surgery. Consider the cholesterol-lowering (and very expensive) statin drugs. But getting heart surgery or getting statins [now] costs a lot more than visiting a doctor’s office and hearing of your (quite limited) treatment options [then]. Medicine costs more than it has ever cost because it can do more than it ever could. That doesn’t mean that we can afford to pay for everything we know how to do. That’s the ugly truth. Every compassionate soul would like to see statins in the pocket of everyone who needs them and a transplanted heart in the chest of everyone who requires one. But we can’t pay for it all.
Realistically, what we can pay for is excellent preventative and routine care. We can ensure that non-emergency care is not handled in the emergency room. We can ensure that doctors make an excellent (yet not extreme) wage to ensure that we all have access to a good doctor when we need one. We can pay for medical school for those willing to be general practitioners and for those willing to serve in underserved communities. We can mandate evidence-based medicine and offer the drugs and other types of care that have proven to be cost effective.
We will have to have a two-tier system. Universal healthcare will necessarily be basic. Those with greater resources will have to be allowed to pursue greater care. We can tax them to help support those who are less fortunate. We can also tax the wealthy and healthy. But when President Obama claims that healthcare for all Americans can come without sacrifice to most of us, we need to laugh. Providing for our neighbors and ourselves will cost us, but we should do it anyway. Remember, doing nothing guarantees disaster. With so much wrong, we can surely hope for something better.
As I have followed coverage of Iran’s swinging political pendulum over the past couple of weeks, I have been thinking about the other moments during which I have felt tremendous optimism and terrible pessimism regarding world events. Ever an observer, I can’t predict or change outcomes. But this doesn’t keep me from hope and fear, doubt and anticipation.
I was a child in a world where many thought the Iron Curtain was impenetrable. Yes, it was simplistic, but for many there was East Germany and the USSR and shoe pounding dictators on one side, and freedom and the USA and people who wanted good things for the world on the other.
Then, during the fall of 1989, the wall came down and the world changed. I had the opportunity to live in Leipzig (former East Germany not too far from Berlin) during the summer of 1994. It was exciting to hear how the movement that preceded the fall of the wall had grown, meeting at the very church where we enjoyed such wonderful organ concerts. However, most of the former DDR residents I met hadn’t necessarily been campaigners for freedom (perhaps most of the campaigners lived in the West by then?). In fact, I grew to realize that they were part of the “them” that I had always opposed to my “us.” But the people I knew were ordinary. Not evil, not seeking world nuclear annihilation, just trying to figure out how to live a happy life under the constraints that they had–as we all do.
Of course, 1989 was also the year of the Tiananmen Square protests in China. Wikipedia says one million people were on the square. I grew up in a small town. A football stadium’s worth of people still impresses me. I can’t imagine what it would be like to stand with a million others calling for freedom. In any case, in China, a million was not enough. The protesters were dispersed–there were injuries and deaths. The desired change didn’t come.
During the past week, there have been times when hundreds of thousands of protesters were on the streets of Iran. I admit that I do not have a nuanced enough view of this area of the world to understand completely what is going on. I do know that as with the world before the wall fell, it is too easy to simplify, to point fingers at good guys and bad guys, good parts of the world and bad. On the other hand, it is true that some guys are good and some are bad. It was a good thing when the wall came down. It was a good thing when East Germany’s secret state police were disbanded and their secrets weren’t secret any more. It was a bad thing when the East German people didn’t have the freedom to travel.
From what I understand, Mir Hussein Moussavi, the opposition candidate who allegedly lost the election, isn’t the pro-American pacifist we dream of, the one who would completely end our nuclear Iran fears. Until recently, he wasn’t part of the opposition, he was part of the establishment.
On the other hand, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad has worked hard to put himself in the enemy category. And when I see the people, especially the women, chanting for Moussavi, I want to join them. I want to wear green and stand in the street and chant, Mou-sa-vee, Mou-sa-vee, Mou-sa-vee. I want to be brave and stand up to the Basij, the robocops, and the tear gas. I want to dare them to spill my blood and see whether it makes their grip on power stronger or weaker. Perhaps it is easier to feel these desires in full force from the comfort of my computer chair. I admire those who feel it when they see the riot police out in force.
Moussavi announced this past week that he was ready to become a martyr. I am not sure whether he is worth dying or being beaten and teargassed for, but the freedom that so many of these Iranians desire probably is.
Recently, we saw Valkyrie. I liked it. Is it possible to watch that movie and not desire to be a von Stauffenberg (the German officer plotting to assassinate Hitler) in one’s own life? To have that courage, that integrity, and to be willing to sacrifice everything for what one believes? To have that sort of clarity and confidence that what one believes is worth the sacrifice?
Anyway, back to Tehran. Or more accurately, to my computer, surfing to see the latest in Tehran. Again, an observer. Pessimism and fear. Hope and anticipation. Waiting, watching, hoping.