It was disappointing, but not surprising, that no Republicans voted for the historic bill President Obama signed into law last week. The Republican leadership, headed by House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, put a lot of pressure on their more moderate and, in some cases, possibly wavering members to withhold support for ideological, pragmatic, as well as political reasons.
While Boehner was greatly overstating the impact of the bill when he repeatedly said it was a "government takeover of healthcare," there is no question its approval into law and implementation would significantly increase the federal government's role. There is also no question that at $940 billion over ten years its cost is very high, and one can certainly question whether the country can afford it, given our weak and recovering economy, large budget deficits and high national debt. It's also not at all certain that this law will contribute to the sizable level of deficit reduction claimed by Obama.
Politically, of course, Boehner and his colleagues saw defeat of this bill as a major means to seriously damage President Obama and enhance the prospects for big gains by Republicans in the November mid-term elections for both congressional and various state governor races including in California. The Democrats, led aggressively by Obama, took a big political risk by pushing such a controversial, complex and expensive bill through Congress on a highly partisan basis. They are betting on the majority of Americans agreeing by November that the healthcare law, despite its high cost and limitations, is nevertheless the right course for the country.
At its core the political debate was between cost and coverage. The Republicans were primarily seeking much lower costs and cost containment measures, where the bill was relatively weak, while Obama and the majority of Democrats in Congress were prioritizing greater coverage for uninsured Americans and more security for those who are already insured. The expectation is that the new law will provide for some level of healthcare insurance coverage for 32 million Americans who currently are uninsured. That, as I understand it, is where most of the law's cost comes from.
I would have liked to see a more credible rough breakdown of the 32 million uninsured people in terms of their general circumstances. How many of them could probably have afforded to purchase coverage, but chose not to, perhaps because they are reasonably healthy and decided to wait until they were older and more liable to need care. How many, if any, are illegal immigrants? However, given the large number of unemployed, the high volume of home foreclosures and under water mortgages, my assumption is that the great majority were legal resident Americans who genuinely felt they could not afford to purchase any coverage.
Furthermore, I may be wrong, but my strong suspicion is that it has been difficult for many Americans to find a simple, basic healthcare insurance policy they would be eligible for having relatively limited but acceptable coverage at a very affordable cost. How many of the 32 million fall into this category?
Conclusions? Much more attention to cost containment measures will be needed over the next several years as the law's implementation proceeds. There's a lot of noise from Republicans about repeal of the law and gaining exemption for states pushing for that. But several legal scholars believe their chances for success are poor. We'll have to wait and see what happens in the November elections, but there's a great deal at stake and no doubt the campaign fervor will be very high on both sides. This was a big, badly needed victory for Obama and the Democrats. If the economy continues to improve and the current official 9.7% unemployment rate is able to fall to 9.4% or 9.5% by early November, which is no sure thing, the Democrats will probably hold their own in the coming elections.
However, it's also likely that if the healthcare reform law is poorly implemented and if the economic recovery falters, and the unemployment rate remains where it is or gets worse, then Democrats will most probably face a very tough time in November, possibly even losing control in the House, worsening Obama's prospects for any bipartisan support on new legislation for the last two years of his elected term in office. Stay tuned.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Campaign Finance Reform Recognition
Our campaign finance situation in this country is in a very poor state, and most Americans probably generally agree. I published a post on this subject expressing my views back in February last year. It was made worse in January this year when the Supreme Court in a case called "Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission" in a 5-4 ruling decided that corporate funding, and that of labor unions, of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited because of the rights of these entities to free speech.
When he heard about this ruling Senator John McCain, co-sponsor of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, expressed his unhappiness by saying "campaign finance reform is dead!" President Obama made headlines in expressing his strong disappointment in his State of the Union speech on January 27th. In a poll taken by the Washington Post and ABC News in February about 80% of Americans were opposed to the Court's ruling: 85% of Democrats, 76% of Republicans, and 81% of Independents.
The campaign finance situation is in a very poor state for a number of reasons. Money and access to a great deal of money is having far too much influence on who is prepared to run for public office and who ends up winning the majority of elections. This is not healthy for a democracy and is not fair for Americans of average or below average means. Furthermore, it is often not fair to shareholders who have invested in corporations, and members of labor unions, who are typically not consulted about political contributions made by the companies they own or unions of which they are dues-paying members. Worse, due to the high costs of running for office and the consequent need for substantial campaign contributions, our current system results in significant de facto political corruption or at least the perception of corruption. Outcomes frequently include inappropriate political favors and earmark legislation favoring large contributors at the expense of most taxpayers.
Another reason for the poor state of our campaign finance situation is that the laws and regulations covering campaign finance are numerous and extremely complex, many enacted by states and many others by the federal government. This situation unneccessarily provides a lot of business for attorneys and, again, favors those individuals, companies, and unions that want to influence elections and legislation, and those who can afford to pay for high-priced attorneys and lobbyists who can help them achieve their objectives.
At this point I want to provide well earned recognition to a relatively unknown good role model and pioneer on the issue of campaign finance reform who died at 100 just a few days ago. Her name was Doris Haddock, she lived in New Hampshire, and was known as "Granny D." When she was 89 she walked across the country from Pasadena to Washington, D. C. for 3,200 miles to promote campaign finance reform, especially public funding of campaigns, walking about ten miles a day! She even skied 100 miles along the journey when snowfall made roadside walking impossible! That's serious dedication! Most people 89, I suspect, could not walk or ski that far for one full day. Also noteworthy, when she was 94 she ran for the United States Senate against Republican Judd Gregg, losing 66% to 34%.
The telling sub-title to her autobiography, co-written by government reformer Dennis Burke, who accompanied Granny D on her walk across the country, was "You're Never Too Old to Raise a Little Hell." What a woman! She was right about that and she was right in promoting campaign finance reform. I don't agree with Senator McCain that reform is "dead," but it is certainly not at all healthy, and it will take quite a while before it is likely to be on the Administration's or Congress' front burners. There are too many other higher national priorities at present, and for real reform to take place some changes in the make-up of the Supreme Court might be required.
Still, we owe it our ourselves and to Granny D's memory to not forget the continuing need to seriously reform our current outdated and dysfunctional campaign finance system, notwithstanding the constitutional challenge posed by the First Amendment.
When he heard about this ruling Senator John McCain, co-sponsor of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, expressed his unhappiness by saying "campaign finance reform is dead!" President Obama made headlines in expressing his strong disappointment in his State of the Union speech on January 27th. In a poll taken by the Washington Post and ABC News in February about 80% of Americans were opposed to the Court's ruling: 85% of Democrats, 76% of Republicans, and 81% of Independents.
The campaign finance situation is in a very poor state for a number of reasons. Money and access to a great deal of money is having far too much influence on who is prepared to run for public office and who ends up winning the majority of elections. This is not healthy for a democracy and is not fair for Americans of average or below average means. Furthermore, it is often not fair to shareholders who have invested in corporations, and members of labor unions, who are typically not consulted about political contributions made by the companies they own or unions of which they are dues-paying members. Worse, due to the high costs of running for office and the consequent need for substantial campaign contributions, our current system results in significant de facto political corruption or at least the perception of corruption. Outcomes frequently include inappropriate political favors and earmark legislation favoring large contributors at the expense of most taxpayers.
Another reason for the poor state of our campaign finance situation is that the laws and regulations covering campaign finance are numerous and extremely complex, many enacted by states and many others by the federal government. This situation unneccessarily provides a lot of business for attorneys and, again, favors those individuals, companies, and unions that want to influence elections and legislation, and those who can afford to pay for high-priced attorneys and lobbyists who can help them achieve their objectives.
At this point I want to provide well earned recognition to a relatively unknown good role model and pioneer on the issue of campaign finance reform who died at 100 just a few days ago. Her name was Doris Haddock, she lived in New Hampshire, and was known as "Granny D." When she was 89 she walked across the country from Pasadena to Washington, D. C. for 3,200 miles to promote campaign finance reform, especially public funding of campaigns, walking about ten miles a day! She even skied 100 miles along the journey when snowfall made roadside walking impossible! That's serious dedication! Most people 89, I suspect, could not walk or ski that far for one full day. Also noteworthy, when she was 94 she ran for the United States Senate against Republican Judd Gregg, losing 66% to 34%.
The telling sub-title to her autobiography, co-written by government reformer Dennis Burke, who accompanied Granny D on her walk across the country, was "You're Never Too Old to Raise a Little Hell." What a woman! She was right about that and she was right in promoting campaign finance reform. I don't agree with Senator McCain that reform is "dead," but it is certainly not at all healthy, and it will take quite a while before it is likely to be on the Administration's or Congress' front burners. There are too many other higher national priorities at present, and for real reform to take place some changes in the make-up of the Supreme Court might be required.
Still, we owe it our ourselves and to Granny D's memory to not forget the continuing need to seriously reform our current outdated and dysfunctional campaign finance system, notwithstanding the constitutional challenge posed by the First Amendment.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Norwegian Olympic Pride
While this is not really a political issue, the primary focus of my blog, as a proud Norwegian-American, I feel compelled to make an exception and publish a post on Norway's very impressive performances in Winter Olympics competition.
In the just concluded Olympics held in Vancouver, Norway earned 9 gold medals, the same as the U. S., and 23 medals in all, fourth among all 82 participating countries, behind only the U. S., Germany, and Canada, the host country. Since the Winter Olympics started in France in 1924, Norway has earned over 300 medals, more than any other country.
This is rather amazing because Norway is such a small country with a relatively little pool of athletes to choose from, having a population of just 4.7 million, among the smallest of all the countries participating in Vancouver. As a reminder, the U. S. has a population of approximately 309 million (66 times as many), Germany has 82 million (17 times as many), and Canada, with home field advantage, has 34 million (7 times as many). Russia, a traditional Olympics powerhouse, well below Norway in medals, has a population of 142 million (30 times as many). As many readers have probably heard, Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev was so very unhappy with the Russian team's performance that he publicly encouraged the leaders of their national Olympic committee to resign, or he would help them step down!
Why is a small country like Norway so successful? Some say it's because there are so many high mountains in Norway with snow and ice. It's true that Norway is a mountainous country, but the mountains are not very high. There are more mountains and higher peaks with snow and ice in many other less successful larger in population countries, including France, Austria, Switzerland, Argentina, Chile, Pakistan, India, and Nepal, as well as Russia and China. Neither is it that Norway is just dominating only one or two sports, though they have earned a great many medals through the years in cross-country skiing and biathlon, two of the country's specialties. Norway has also won quite a few medals in figure skating, speedskating, ski jumping, and, particularly in recent years, in alpine skiing.
Aside from its mountains, I think Norwegian athletes' success has much to do with culture, traditions, geography, weather, but most of all more specifically on a longstanding strong interest in exercise, fitness and sports, a stubborn determination to succeed, and tough character with a common willingness to endure difficult hardship for an important cause. Another important factor is that there's a winter sports club in nearly every city and town, and a government funded program which identifies talented athletes in their early teens and nurtures them through development. The fact that most of Norway's cities are located very close to wilderness and skiing areas no doubt helps. Perhaps traditionally high protein diets also play a role, as do skiing, hiking, walking and bicycling as popular means of transportation. The legacy of our Viking warrior ancestors may factor in as well. Of course, good coaching and an effective sports organization are also critical elements.
Well-known and highly regarded New York Times columnist David Brooks was also struck by Norway's success. In his article "The Hard and the Soft", published the 1st of March, Brooks wrote that "There are many reasons for Norway's excellence, but some are probably embedded in the story of Jan Baalsrud," which he summarized. The incredible story of Baalsrud was described in a book by David Howarth titled "We Die Alone."
Born in Oslo in 1917, Baalsrud was very active in the anti-Nazi resistance movement in German occupied Norway during World War II. In early 1943 he and three other Norwegian commandos signed on to a dangerous mission to destroy a German air control tower and recruit for the resistance movement. The mission was compromised when he and the others, seeking a trusted resistance contact, accidentally made contact with a shopkeeper of the same name who betrayed them to the Germans.
The next day their fishing boat, containing tons of explosives intended to destroy the air control tower, was attacked by a German vessel and sank. Baalsrud and the others swam ashore in ice cold waters, chased by the Nazis, but he was the only one able to evade capture. He evaded capture for about two months, hiking long distances while suffering from frostbite, snow blindness and exhaustion, as well as near starvation. In this time he even had to amputate nine of his toes with a pocket knife to stop the spread of gangrene to his feet. Thanks to the efforts of fellow Norwegian patriots he was transported on a stretcher towards the northern border with Finland where he was put in the care of some Lapps who with reindeer pulled him on a sled across Finland and into neutral Sweden where he was safe. Fortunately he survived the war and died peacefully in Norway in 1988 at 71. Talk about toughness, hardship, and perseverance!
Whatever the reasons for Norway's success, I would think the pride many of us have is quite understandable. "Heia Norge!"
In the just concluded Olympics held in Vancouver, Norway earned 9 gold medals, the same as the U. S., and 23 medals in all, fourth among all 82 participating countries, behind only the U. S., Germany, and Canada, the host country. Since the Winter Olympics started in France in 1924, Norway has earned over 300 medals, more than any other country.
This is rather amazing because Norway is such a small country with a relatively little pool of athletes to choose from, having a population of just 4.7 million, among the smallest of all the countries participating in Vancouver. As a reminder, the U. S. has a population of approximately 309 million (66 times as many), Germany has 82 million (17 times as many), and Canada, with home field advantage, has 34 million (7 times as many). Russia, a traditional Olympics powerhouse, well below Norway in medals, has a population of 142 million (30 times as many). As many readers have probably heard, Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev was so very unhappy with the Russian team's performance that he publicly encouraged the leaders of their national Olympic committee to resign, or he would help them step down!
Why is a small country like Norway so successful? Some say it's because there are so many high mountains in Norway with snow and ice. It's true that Norway is a mountainous country, but the mountains are not very high. There are more mountains and higher peaks with snow and ice in many other less successful larger in population countries, including France, Austria, Switzerland, Argentina, Chile, Pakistan, India, and Nepal, as well as Russia and China. Neither is it that Norway is just dominating only one or two sports, though they have earned a great many medals through the years in cross-country skiing and biathlon, two of the country's specialties. Norway has also won quite a few medals in figure skating, speedskating, ski jumping, and, particularly in recent years, in alpine skiing.
Aside from its mountains, I think Norwegian athletes' success has much to do with culture, traditions, geography, weather, but most of all more specifically on a longstanding strong interest in exercise, fitness and sports, a stubborn determination to succeed, and tough character with a common willingness to endure difficult hardship for an important cause. Another important factor is that there's a winter sports club in nearly every city and town, and a government funded program which identifies talented athletes in their early teens and nurtures them through development. The fact that most of Norway's cities are located very close to wilderness and skiing areas no doubt helps. Perhaps traditionally high protein diets also play a role, as do skiing, hiking, walking and bicycling as popular means of transportation. The legacy of our Viking warrior ancestors may factor in as well. Of course, good coaching and an effective sports organization are also critical elements.
Well-known and highly regarded New York Times columnist David Brooks was also struck by Norway's success. In his article "The Hard and the Soft", published the 1st of March, Brooks wrote that "There are many reasons for Norway's excellence, but some are probably embedded in the story of Jan Baalsrud," which he summarized. The incredible story of Baalsrud was described in a book by David Howarth titled "We Die Alone."
Born in Oslo in 1917, Baalsrud was very active in the anti-Nazi resistance movement in German occupied Norway during World War II. In early 1943 he and three other Norwegian commandos signed on to a dangerous mission to destroy a German air control tower and recruit for the resistance movement. The mission was compromised when he and the others, seeking a trusted resistance contact, accidentally made contact with a shopkeeper of the same name who betrayed them to the Germans.
The next day their fishing boat, containing tons of explosives intended to destroy the air control tower, was attacked by a German vessel and sank. Baalsrud and the others swam ashore in ice cold waters, chased by the Nazis, but he was the only one able to evade capture. He evaded capture for about two months, hiking long distances while suffering from frostbite, snow blindness and exhaustion, as well as near starvation. In this time he even had to amputate nine of his toes with a pocket knife to stop the spread of gangrene to his feet. Thanks to the efforts of fellow Norwegian patriots he was transported on a stretcher towards the northern border with Finland where he was put in the care of some Lapps who with reindeer pulled him on a sled across Finland and into neutral Sweden where he was safe. Fortunately he survived the war and died peacefully in Norway in 1988 at 71. Talk about toughness, hardship, and perseverance!
Whatever the reasons for Norway's success, I would think the pride many of us have is quite understandable. "Heia Norge!"
Monday, March 1, 2010
Healthcare Reform Update Thoughts
In two more days President Obama is scheduled to lay out his plan on moving forward with high priority healthcare reform legislation, following the largely partisan full day summit led by him on February 25th in Washington, D. C. with leading Democrat and Republican congressional leaders. I thought the President did a good job in trying to gain an uphill bipartisan consensus, but it became quite clear that, while there was some general agreement on a number of issues, the Republicans insisted on scrapping the pending bills, as well as the President's own recent proposal based for the most part on the Senate bill, and starting over from scratch as a condition for their support of a mutually satisfactory reform bill.
The Republicans must have known that the President and Democratic leaders would not be willing to go along with starting over after a year of meetings, hearings, filibustering and negotiations. However, based on recent public opinion polls generally unfavorable to Democrats, and their optimism for Republican prospects in the November mid-term elections, they were apparently very willing to take the risk involved. So it was in large part a strategic political decision by the Republicans. To be fair, their decision was also due to real concern with the affordability and scope of the Democrats' comprehensive plan.
There's no doubt that right now President Obama has his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid pressuring members for support, and counting and recounting expected votes in the Senate and House for the President's plan, tweaked a little to incorporate some Republican summit input. There's no question that it's critical for the President to have a satisfactory bill passed within the next two to three months that he can sign into law. He would greatly prefer a bill that has a level of bipartisan support. He would also prefer to avoid, if possible, what most members of Congress and political pundits consider inevitable, achieving approval by the controversial process of reconciliation where all that's required is majority vote.
Democrats' priorities are cost controls, comprehensive reform, care affordability, healthcare insurance industry reforms, and especially wider coverage for uninsured and underinsured Americans. Republicans' priorities are cost controls, more limited lower cost reform, no increase in any taxes, and keeping our federal deficit and national debt as low as possible as a consequence of the approved legislation.
The President's and Speaker Pelosi's apparent two biggest challenges on the vote counting is to keep the House's liberal members in line, though these Representatives object to many parts of the Senate bill, and to win the votes of the 25 more moderate "Blue Dog" Democrats who voted against the House bill last year. The latter will likely prove the more difficult challenge.
Some additional thoughts:
1. It's a "no-brainer" that the final legislation should focus a great deal on eliminating fraud, abuse and obvious inefficiencies in our current system to the greatest extent possible, keeping in mind that this should have broad bipartisan support and the claim by Republican leaders that these activities account for as much as one-third of all healthcare spending.
2. In support of their push for more limited reform, and less government regulation, one of the Republican leaders stated that the U. S. already has the best healthcare system in the world, implying that very little reform is really needed. This is highly debatable, (given also the high level of fraud, abuse and inefficiencies) considering that 11-15% of our population is uninsured and a much higher percentage is either uninsured or underinsured, while in almost every other developed country everyone is insured. Moreover, the infant mortality rate in the U. S. is twice as high as in Italy, Austria,and Norway, and 50% higher than in Switzerland, France and Germany. Additionally, there is the fragility of our insurance coverage, due to the risks inherent in pre-existing conditions and losing or changing jobs, which are not a problem in most other developed countries.
3. The final bill should also allow purchases of insurance across state lines, in order to create more competition and thereby lower premium costs. I also think there should be agreement on some level of tort reform, as recommended by Republicans, to lower liability insurance costs for hospitals and doctors, thereby lowering costs to patients and premium costs billed by insurance companies.
4. As the world's wealthiest country, we should be able and willing to at least provide a limited, basic healthcare coverage to the most needy 5-10 million of our 35-40 million uninsured, especially the children in this group, without having a serious longer term negative impact on our deficit or national debt levels.
Frankly, all of the above points are relative "no-brainers" and a high majority of members of Congress, adequate to get the final legislation approved, should be able to agree and do what's right for the country, moving us in a positive direction towards one day hopefully actually having the best healthcare system in the world.
The Republicans must have known that the President and Democratic leaders would not be willing to go along with starting over after a year of meetings, hearings, filibustering and negotiations. However, based on recent public opinion polls generally unfavorable to Democrats, and their optimism for Republican prospects in the November mid-term elections, they were apparently very willing to take the risk involved. So it was in large part a strategic political decision by the Republicans. To be fair, their decision was also due to real concern with the affordability and scope of the Democrats' comprehensive plan.
There's no doubt that right now President Obama has his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid pressuring members for support, and counting and recounting expected votes in the Senate and House for the President's plan, tweaked a little to incorporate some Republican summit input. There's no question that it's critical for the President to have a satisfactory bill passed within the next two to three months that he can sign into law. He would greatly prefer a bill that has a level of bipartisan support. He would also prefer to avoid, if possible, what most members of Congress and political pundits consider inevitable, achieving approval by the controversial process of reconciliation where all that's required is majority vote.
Democrats' priorities are cost controls, comprehensive reform, care affordability, healthcare insurance industry reforms, and especially wider coverage for uninsured and underinsured Americans. Republicans' priorities are cost controls, more limited lower cost reform, no increase in any taxes, and keeping our federal deficit and national debt as low as possible as a consequence of the approved legislation.
The President's and Speaker Pelosi's apparent two biggest challenges on the vote counting is to keep the House's liberal members in line, though these Representatives object to many parts of the Senate bill, and to win the votes of the 25 more moderate "Blue Dog" Democrats who voted against the House bill last year. The latter will likely prove the more difficult challenge.
Some additional thoughts:
1. It's a "no-brainer" that the final legislation should focus a great deal on eliminating fraud, abuse and obvious inefficiencies in our current system to the greatest extent possible, keeping in mind that this should have broad bipartisan support and the claim by Republican leaders that these activities account for as much as one-third of all healthcare spending.
2. In support of their push for more limited reform, and less government regulation, one of the Republican leaders stated that the U. S. already has the best healthcare system in the world, implying that very little reform is really needed. This is highly debatable, (given also the high level of fraud, abuse and inefficiencies) considering that 11-15% of our population is uninsured and a much higher percentage is either uninsured or underinsured, while in almost every other developed country everyone is insured. Moreover, the infant mortality rate in the U. S. is twice as high as in Italy, Austria,and Norway, and 50% higher than in Switzerland, France and Germany. Additionally, there is the fragility of our insurance coverage, due to the risks inherent in pre-existing conditions and losing or changing jobs, which are not a problem in most other developed countries.
3. The final bill should also allow purchases of insurance across state lines, in order to create more competition and thereby lower premium costs. I also think there should be agreement on some level of tort reform, as recommended by Republicans, to lower liability insurance costs for hospitals and doctors, thereby lowering costs to patients and premium costs billed by insurance companies.
4. As the world's wealthiest country, we should be able and willing to at least provide a limited, basic healthcare coverage to the most needy 5-10 million of our 35-40 million uninsured, especially the children in this group, without having a serious longer term negative impact on our deficit or national debt levels.
Frankly, all of the above points are relative "no-brainers" and a high majority of members of Congress, adequate to get the final legislation approved, should be able to agree and do what's right for the country, moving us in a positive direction towards one day hopefully actually having the best healthcare system in the world.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Health and the Soda Tax Fizzle
Fast increasing overall health care costs in the country, regardless of what happens to pending legislation in the Congress this year, will lead to higher insurance company premiums, higher individual co-pays and deductibles, and/or higher corporate and personal income taxes. There are many reasons for the increasing health care costs, including growth in our senior population requiring more care, lack of health care tort reform, and strong lobbying by the health care industry. Another big factor is the growth in the percentage of our population that is overweight or obese.
According to a number of credible sources, as many as one out of three of our children are now overweight or obese, and a similar ratio applies to adults! It is also of great concern that a majority of these overweight or obese people seem to be in lower income families who can least afford to pay for the substantial expenses associated with treating these weight conditions, especially such as diabetes and heart disease. Medical costs related to obesity in the U. S. are estimated at a scary $147 billion annually and growing!
It is not a secret why people become overweight or obese. A relatively minor factor is family genetics. The primary factors, of course, are diet, exercise, and lifestyle. With respect to diet, important elements are the intake of calories and sugar heavy foods. Sodas have been one of the noteworthy culprits, particularly for children. (A 12 fluid ounce can of Pepsi, for example, has 150 calories and 41 grams of sugar!) To deal with this problem, a well regarded doctor at Yale University proposed the idea of a soda tax in 1994 and now 33 states have a sales tax on soda purchases. But there's not yet a federal tax on sodas.
During the course of 2009, however, an effort was launched in Congress and in the Obama Administration to mobilize support for a federal soda tax, both to induce people to reduce consumption and to raise needed revenue to help in a small way to pay for health care reform. A study done at Yale concluded that a penny an ounce soda tax could induce a 23% drop in consumption and the Congressional Budget Office estimated that a smaller tax could raise $50 billion over 10 years. Certainly not insignificant.
Unfortunately, strong lobbying by Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and the American Beverage Association (ABA) very recently apparently convinced Congress and the Administration to drop their earlier plan to adopt a tax. According to research by the L. A. Times, Coca-Cola last year spent $9.4 million, PepsiCo $9.2 million and the ABA $18.9million! Presumably this was largely spent on paying Washington lobbyists, attorneys, and Congress members on the key Ways and Means Committee, who sought corporate contributions, especially for upcoming reelection campaigns.
Interestingly, on the same day that the L. A. Times had an article on this subject, there was a full-page advertisement in the paper by Coca-Cola boasting about how much they are doing to reduce the calories of their drinks provided to schools and what they have been doing in partnership with the Boys & Girls Clubs of America to set up programs to get kids to increase their physical activity and learn more about proper nutrition. Looks like some clever collaboration with their ad agency and the media.
Two of their expected main arguments opposing the tax were that the tax would unfairly harm poor and lower income Americans and that a tax would quickly lead to many other unwelcome taxes on foods. I don't agree with the unfair harm, but they may have a point with other unwelcome taxes. Not surprisingly, they didn't bring up the harm to these Americans' health and pocketbooks that continuing consumption of sodas would result in! Seems like clear hypocrisy to me and also reminds me of the poor behavior of tobacco companies in past decades in marketing their products.
What should be done? Obviously a great many parents could do a better job of raising their children in terms of diets and physical activity that foster improved health and help them to maintain satisfactory weight levels. Fast foods restaurants and food manufacturers have taken some good steps in recent years in making and promoting lower calorie food options and better disclosing ingredients and nutritional content. But both business groups can do much more to benefit customers as well as shareholders. A separate post would be needed to cover that subject, but it's quite obvious what steps would help.
While I'm sure there are exceptions, the majority of schools and school districts can do a better job of providing more nutritious food in their cafeterias, limiting poor choices in on-site vending machines, a greater focus on prudent exercise in their PE classes and sports programs, and by offering a good required class in their curricula on health and nutrition, if they don't have one already.
If parents, businesses and schools all do their jobs well in this area, there is little need for the government to get more involved, aside from such as continuing to monitor and enforce proper public disclosures on products and appropriate sanitary conditions in factories, food stores and restaurants. However, since this is not the case, and health costs are such a large and growing part of state and federal budgets, it is appropriate for our government to get selectively involved to protect the public and more prudently manage public resources.
Adopting a reasonable federal sales tax on unhealthy foods, like sodas, is one reasonable tool. Working through the Departments of Education and Health and Human Resources to help schools and even parents is another. The bottom line is that better health for our $310 million Americans is, or should be, in virtually everone's interest. It would greatly improve the quality of life for those who are not as healthy as they could be, and it should materially improve the finances of both individuals and, importantly, our country itself, particularly in the long run.
According to a number of credible sources, as many as one out of three of our children are now overweight or obese, and a similar ratio applies to adults! It is also of great concern that a majority of these overweight or obese people seem to be in lower income families who can least afford to pay for the substantial expenses associated with treating these weight conditions, especially such as diabetes and heart disease. Medical costs related to obesity in the U. S. are estimated at a scary $147 billion annually and growing!
It is not a secret why people become overweight or obese. A relatively minor factor is family genetics. The primary factors, of course, are diet, exercise, and lifestyle. With respect to diet, important elements are the intake of calories and sugar heavy foods. Sodas have been one of the noteworthy culprits, particularly for children. (A 12 fluid ounce can of Pepsi, for example, has 150 calories and 41 grams of sugar!) To deal with this problem, a well regarded doctor at Yale University proposed the idea of a soda tax in 1994 and now 33 states have a sales tax on soda purchases. But there's not yet a federal tax on sodas.
During the course of 2009, however, an effort was launched in Congress and in the Obama Administration to mobilize support for a federal soda tax, both to induce people to reduce consumption and to raise needed revenue to help in a small way to pay for health care reform. A study done at Yale concluded that a penny an ounce soda tax could induce a 23% drop in consumption and the Congressional Budget Office estimated that a smaller tax could raise $50 billion over 10 years. Certainly not insignificant.
Unfortunately, strong lobbying by Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and the American Beverage Association (ABA) very recently apparently convinced Congress and the Administration to drop their earlier plan to adopt a tax. According to research by the L. A. Times, Coca-Cola last year spent $9.4 million, PepsiCo $9.2 million and the ABA $18.9million! Presumably this was largely spent on paying Washington lobbyists, attorneys, and Congress members on the key Ways and Means Committee, who sought corporate contributions, especially for upcoming reelection campaigns.
Interestingly, on the same day that the L. A. Times had an article on this subject, there was a full-page advertisement in the paper by Coca-Cola boasting about how much they are doing to reduce the calories of their drinks provided to schools and what they have been doing in partnership with the Boys & Girls Clubs of America to set up programs to get kids to increase their physical activity and learn more about proper nutrition. Looks like some clever collaboration with their ad agency and the media.
Two of their expected main arguments opposing the tax were that the tax would unfairly harm poor and lower income Americans and that a tax would quickly lead to many other unwelcome taxes on foods. I don't agree with the unfair harm, but they may have a point with other unwelcome taxes. Not surprisingly, they didn't bring up the harm to these Americans' health and pocketbooks that continuing consumption of sodas would result in! Seems like clear hypocrisy to me and also reminds me of the poor behavior of tobacco companies in past decades in marketing their products.
What should be done? Obviously a great many parents could do a better job of raising their children in terms of diets and physical activity that foster improved health and help them to maintain satisfactory weight levels. Fast foods restaurants and food manufacturers have taken some good steps in recent years in making and promoting lower calorie food options and better disclosing ingredients and nutritional content. But both business groups can do much more to benefit customers as well as shareholders. A separate post would be needed to cover that subject, but it's quite obvious what steps would help.
While I'm sure there are exceptions, the majority of schools and school districts can do a better job of providing more nutritious food in their cafeterias, limiting poor choices in on-site vending machines, a greater focus on prudent exercise in their PE classes and sports programs, and by offering a good required class in their curricula on health and nutrition, if they don't have one already.
If parents, businesses and schools all do their jobs well in this area, there is little need for the government to get more involved, aside from such as continuing to monitor and enforce proper public disclosures on products and appropriate sanitary conditions in factories, food stores and restaurants. However, since this is not the case, and health costs are such a large and growing part of state and federal budgets, it is appropriate for our government to get selectively involved to protect the public and more prudently manage public resources.
Adopting a reasonable federal sales tax on unhealthy foods, like sodas, is one reasonable tool. Working through the Departments of Education and Health and Human Resources to help schools and even parents is another. The bottom line is that better health for our $310 million Americans is, or should be, in virtually everone's interest. It would greatly improve the quality of life for those who are not as healthy as they could be, and it should materially improve the finances of both individuals and, importantly, our country itself, particularly in the long run.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Federal Budget Action Steps
President Obama, his political agenda, and prospects for Democrats in the November mid-term congressional elections would be well served if he beginning immediately became a little less combative and more pragmatic in his approach to working with the Congress, especially independents and moderate Republicans, whom, realistically, he needs support from to get most important legislation passed. Part of this approach should be taking bolder action on the federal budget for fiscal 2011.
In my post published on 12/07/09, "U. S. Looming Fiscal Crisis," I emphasized how serious the country's economic situation was in view of the continuing recession, high unemployment rate, growing national debt, and continuing sizable budget deficits. I also laid out a number of recommendations including moving toward a balanced budget as quickly as possible, freezing hiring of federal employees, cutting health care costs, increasing sales tax on gasoline, and overhauling the IRS.
President Obama's State of the Union speech on January 27th had many good points and, as usual, was delivered very well. However, he didn't employ most of my recommendations and it just wasn't bold enough. For example, he said he will freeze non-security discretionary funding for three years. To reduce the deficit in a recessionary environment, and to show he is really serious, he needs to cut this spending by, say, 5%, instead of just freezing it, to help reduce the deficit. I think he was right to form a bipartisan fiscal commission charged with identifying additional policies to "put our country on a fiscally sustainable path." But he wasn't bold enough, in my view, in saying his goal was balancing the budget, excluding interest payments on our national debt, by 2015.
Keep in mind that interest on the national debt is typically our fourth highest budgeted expense category after defense, Social Security and Medicare. In fiscal 2007 and 2008 the interest expense was as much as $239 billion. It declined to $199 billion in fiscal 2009 due to much lower market interest rates. The President's goal should include interest expense. If he wants to exclude interest expense, the goal should be a balanced budget by 2013, latest 2014.
Obama's plan to form the bipartisan fiscal commission headed by Democrat Senator Kent Conrad from North Dakota and Republican Senator Judd Gregg from New Hampshire through a new bill was disappointingly blocked in the Senate on January 26th. However, as I understand it, he now intends to move forward with the commission by executive order. I agree with Senator Gregg when he on February 1st said the President should have "a tougher plan to address our fiscal crisis," because his budget will not adequately move us towards solving our problem.
Yesterday President Obama tried to rally Democrats with a fiery speech in Washington, D. C. at a meeting of the Democratic National Committee. Among other partisan comments he rightly said this was no time to abandon the bold agenda charted at the beginning of his administration. One political analyst said his strategy now seems to be appealing to Republicans to make compromises to come closer to the Democratic leadership's legislative proposals and, if they do not, to accuse them of obstruction. Assuming the analyst is correct, this is not a smart approach. Furthermore, there is a big difference between "abandoning" his bold agenda and making some temporary concessions to the opposition in order to move forward in the right direction.
The goal should be getting relatively expeditious congressional approval of major legislation on such as important issues as health care reform, financial institutions regulatory reform, and energy policy that are good for the country and the majority of the American people. It should not be the goal to try to ram through reform bills that are ideally what Democrats and the President would like to get passed, but realistically have little chance of getting approved in the foreseeable future.
A modified and scaled-down health care reform bill focusing on the primary problems with our current system, incorporating moderate Republican input, and more tangibly and meaningfully lowering overall costs, maintaining what works well now, would be a good place to start. Other recommendations for the President and his administration:
1. To set a better example for fiscal discipline, propose a modest 5% cut in salaries and benefits for federal employees earning more than $100,000 for the next two years.
2. Propose more restrictions on Administration and congressional expenses for travel abroad, including for meals and lodging.
3. With a view toward saving money for the government and average Americans, and simplifying our lives, overhaul the IRS and the whole process of preparing individual tax returns.
4. Increase the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon to 30 cents to raise revenue to be applied to reducing our deficit and improving our highways. This will also induce more conservation, lessen our reliance on energy imports, and encourage the purchase of more energy efficient cars and trucks, also aiding air pollution mitigation efforts.
5. Obviously a top priority right now is action to reduce the unemployment rate by creating hundreds of thousands new jobs with decent salaries and benefits. Tax incentives to induce smaller and larger businesses to make sizable new capital investments should be a major component of the new jobs bill currently designed in Congress.
In my post published on 12/07/09, "U. S. Looming Fiscal Crisis," I emphasized how serious the country's economic situation was in view of the continuing recession, high unemployment rate, growing national debt, and continuing sizable budget deficits. I also laid out a number of recommendations including moving toward a balanced budget as quickly as possible, freezing hiring of federal employees, cutting health care costs, increasing sales tax on gasoline, and overhauling the IRS.
President Obama's State of the Union speech on January 27th had many good points and, as usual, was delivered very well. However, he didn't employ most of my recommendations and it just wasn't bold enough. For example, he said he will freeze non-security discretionary funding for three years. To reduce the deficit in a recessionary environment, and to show he is really serious, he needs to cut this spending by, say, 5%, instead of just freezing it, to help reduce the deficit. I think he was right to form a bipartisan fiscal commission charged with identifying additional policies to "put our country on a fiscally sustainable path." But he wasn't bold enough, in my view, in saying his goal was balancing the budget, excluding interest payments on our national debt, by 2015.
Keep in mind that interest on the national debt is typically our fourth highest budgeted expense category after defense, Social Security and Medicare. In fiscal 2007 and 2008 the interest expense was as much as $239 billion. It declined to $199 billion in fiscal 2009 due to much lower market interest rates. The President's goal should include interest expense. If he wants to exclude interest expense, the goal should be a balanced budget by 2013, latest 2014.
Obama's plan to form the bipartisan fiscal commission headed by Democrat Senator Kent Conrad from North Dakota and Republican Senator Judd Gregg from New Hampshire through a new bill was disappointingly blocked in the Senate on January 26th. However, as I understand it, he now intends to move forward with the commission by executive order. I agree with Senator Gregg when he on February 1st said the President should have "a tougher plan to address our fiscal crisis," because his budget will not adequately move us towards solving our problem.
Yesterday President Obama tried to rally Democrats with a fiery speech in Washington, D. C. at a meeting of the Democratic National Committee. Among other partisan comments he rightly said this was no time to abandon the bold agenda charted at the beginning of his administration. One political analyst said his strategy now seems to be appealing to Republicans to make compromises to come closer to the Democratic leadership's legislative proposals and, if they do not, to accuse them of obstruction. Assuming the analyst is correct, this is not a smart approach. Furthermore, there is a big difference between "abandoning" his bold agenda and making some temporary concessions to the opposition in order to move forward in the right direction.
The goal should be getting relatively expeditious congressional approval of major legislation on such as important issues as health care reform, financial institutions regulatory reform, and energy policy that are good for the country and the majority of the American people. It should not be the goal to try to ram through reform bills that are ideally what Democrats and the President would like to get passed, but realistically have little chance of getting approved in the foreseeable future.
A modified and scaled-down health care reform bill focusing on the primary problems with our current system, incorporating moderate Republican input, and more tangibly and meaningfully lowering overall costs, maintaining what works well now, would be a good place to start. Other recommendations for the President and his administration:
1. To set a better example for fiscal discipline, propose a modest 5% cut in salaries and benefits for federal employees earning more than $100,000 for the next two years.
2. Propose more restrictions on Administration and congressional expenses for travel abroad, including for meals and lodging.
3. With a view toward saving money for the government and average Americans, and simplifying our lives, overhaul the IRS and the whole process of preparing individual tax returns.
4. Increase the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon to 30 cents to raise revenue to be applied to reducing our deficit and improving our highways. This will also induce more conservation, lessen our reliance on energy imports, and encourage the purchase of more energy efficient cars and trucks, also aiding air pollution mitigation efforts.
5. Obviously a top priority right now is action to reduce the unemployment rate by creating hundreds of thousands new jobs with decent salaries and benefits. Tax incentives to induce smaller and larger businesses to make sizable new capital investments should be a major component of the new jobs bill currently designed in Congress.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Senate Filibusters
It's an important political issue, but I suspect most Americans don't really know or care what a filibuster is, though the subject has been in the news quite a bit again lately. For those not familiar with the word, it's basically the political label used for an extended speech or debate in the U. S. Senate which main purpose is to delay or prevent a vote. The term actually derives from the 18th and early 19th century Spanish and Portuguese pirates referred to as "filibusteros," who held ships hostage for ransom, much as the Somali pirates have been doing in recent years.
Another way to describe it is that a filibuster nowadays is a parliamentary tactic used to stall legislative proceedings or to thwart an opposing bill that would otherwise most probably pass. It is rooted in the Senate's tradition of allowing unlimited debate and was originally intended to produce a more balanced and considered judgment. To initiate a filibuster a senator must have the floor. If the filibusterer doesn't stop talking of his or her own accord, the only way to stop that senator is by a parliamentary procedure called cloture, requiring a minimum three-fifths vote by sixty or more senators.
Both Republicans and Democrats use filibustering when they are in the minority and wish to be a pain in the neck to the majority party on a particular issue or bill they greatly oppose. Perhaps the most infamous use of the filibuster was by now deceased Senator Strom Thurmond from South Carolina who, in an attempt to block progress in civil rights legislation, talked for more than 24 hours straight without a break (with assistance from a urine bag) in 1957. In 2003 when Democrats were in the minority Senator Harry Reid from Nevada, now Majority Leader, spent over eight hours on the Senate floor protesting how much time Republicans were taking in support of President Bush's controversial judicial nominations instead of focusing on the country's high unemployment rate. Much of this time Senator Reid just stood there reading several chapters from an uninteresting book he had written on his home town. As most people know, Republican leaders filibustered quite a bit most of last year to stop meaningful progress on the health care reform bill they strongly opposed.
This is crazy! It's wasteful! It's usually reflective of blatant, unprofessional partisanship, often mixed in with misleading and inaccurate advertising and special interest lobbying! The voters and taxpayers deserve much better of their well compensated public servants. What can and should be done? Voters can make it clear to their senators how they feel about this situation, encourage reform and more mature bipartisanship to get the public's important business done in a proper and efficient way. The media can write and publish blunt editorials recommending the same.
Public and media pressure can help, as can a compelling call to action on this score by the President. However, the Senate leaders of both parties are best positioned to get appropriate, balanced rule changes approved quickly. One option is to get agreement that the Senate approves a reduction in the number of senators needed to cut off debate on an issue or bill to somewhere between 51 and 55, instead of the current 60 votes. Another option to make it easier to stop a filibuster, proposed recently by Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, is that the number of votes needed to stop a filibuster is gradually reduced in stages, from 60 votes on the first attempt, to 57 votes on the second attempt if a vote is is held two days later, and eventually to 51votes if the debate drags on long enough.
Another idea is to have the Senate leaders agree on a concise, clear and specific declaration to be incorporated into the procedural rules that would prohibit all blatant filibustering that is obviously not germane to what is the subject at hand. Furthermore, the declaration could incorporate language that provides a fair, reasonable and balanced opportunity for a limited number of senators from each major party to speak for an agreed maximum period on each issue or bill, whether that be 30minutes, an hour or two hours, for example. It shouldn't really be that difficult and complicated. If it's too controversial for such a declaration to be effective immediately, then it can be agreed to be effective at the beginning of the next term when winners of the next mid-term congressional elections get seated in 2011.
Come on, senators! Be accountable! Get this done! It's about time. No more excuses!
Another way to describe it is that a filibuster nowadays is a parliamentary tactic used to stall legislative proceedings or to thwart an opposing bill that would otherwise most probably pass. It is rooted in the Senate's tradition of allowing unlimited debate and was originally intended to produce a more balanced and considered judgment. To initiate a filibuster a senator must have the floor. If the filibusterer doesn't stop talking of his or her own accord, the only way to stop that senator is by a parliamentary procedure called cloture, requiring a minimum three-fifths vote by sixty or more senators.
Both Republicans and Democrats use filibustering when they are in the minority and wish to be a pain in the neck to the majority party on a particular issue or bill they greatly oppose. Perhaps the most infamous use of the filibuster was by now deceased Senator Strom Thurmond from South Carolina who, in an attempt to block progress in civil rights legislation, talked for more than 24 hours straight without a break (with assistance from a urine bag) in 1957. In 2003 when Democrats were in the minority Senator Harry Reid from Nevada, now Majority Leader, spent over eight hours on the Senate floor protesting how much time Republicans were taking in support of President Bush's controversial judicial nominations instead of focusing on the country's high unemployment rate. Much of this time Senator Reid just stood there reading several chapters from an uninteresting book he had written on his home town. As most people know, Republican leaders filibustered quite a bit most of last year to stop meaningful progress on the health care reform bill they strongly opposed.
This is crazy! It's wasteful! It's usually reflective of blatant, unprofessional partisanship, often mixed in with misleading and inaccurate advertising and special interest lobbying! The voters and taxpayers deserve much better of their well compensated public servants. What can and should be done? Voters can make it clear to their senators how they feel about this situation, encourage reform and more mature bipartisanship to get the public's important business done in a proper and efficient way. The media can write and publish blunt editorials recommending the same.
Public and media pressure can help, as can a compelling call to action on this score by the President. However, the Senate leaders of both parties are best positioned to get appropriate, balanced rule changes approved quickly. One option is to get agreement that the Senate approves a reduction in the number of senators needed to cut off debate on an issue or bill to somewhere between 51 and 55, instead of the current 60 votes. Another option to make it easier to stop a filibuster, proposed recently by Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, is that the number of votes needed to stop a filibuster is gradually reduced in stages, from 60 votes on the first attempt, to 57 votes on the second attempt if a vote is is held two days later, and eventually to 51votes if the debate drags on long enough.
Another idea is to have the Senate leaders agree on a concise, clear and specific declaration to be incorporated into the procedural rules that would prohibit all blatant filibustering that is obviously not germane to what is the subject at hand. Furthermore, the declaration could incorporate language that provides a fair, reasonable and balanced opportunity for a limited number of senators from each major party to speak for an agreed maximum period on each issue or bill, whether that be 30minutes, an hour or two hours, for example. It shouldn't really be that difficult and complicated. If it's too controversial for such a declaration to be effective immediately, then it can be agreed to be effective at the beginning of the next term when winners of the next mid-term congressional elections get seated in 2011.
Come on, senators! Be accountable! Get this done! It's about time. No more excuses!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)