The Audacity of Nope

This was published in the August 7, 2011 Trenton Times under the title, " We must unite to solve our nation's problems"

I’m disappointed...and so are many other Americans. When Barack Obama was elected, we had the audacity to hope that the tendency to deadlock in Washington would be reversed – that there would truly be non-partisan cooperation, and there would truly be harmony. But the struggle for superiority continues to work against such an elusive goal, and we continue to hurtle toward the abyss. The total lack of cooperation, and indeed the rampant obstructionism – the ubiquitous use of “no,” is frightening. It seems that Nancy Reagan’s “Just say no” slogan has been co-opted for far less noble purposes.

The behavior of our elected officials, particularly in our nation’s capitol, is very disheartening. We entrust these people with our lives and our livelihoods, only to see them gamble away our limited wealth in games of brinksmanship, wars of attrition, and schemes of Ponzi. And most recently, with our country tetering on the edge of bankruptcy, we’ve seen them at their worst – pointing fingers, issuing ultimatums, wasting time while other major issues are burgeoning, and each waiting for the other to blink. What seems to be lost on them is that compromise is not necessarily a bad thing, and doesn’t have to be a zero sum proposition. A rising tide can lift all boats, but not if they’re too firmly tied to their moorings.

The games being played by our elected officials are extremely dangerous. With a refusal to agree on anything meaningful, not only are we losing our credit standing, and with it, much of our economic value. We’re losing our place as leader of the free world, which desperately needs a strong leader. We’re also losing the momentum we’ve built with growing prosperity, where each generation is better off than the last. We owe it to our children and their children to keep their dreams alive.

Wars of attrition are being waged in many ways, both domestically and internationally. On the inside, with our elected officials’ parties sniping at each other and refusing to cooperate, with actions bordering on extortion, they’re gaining nothing for themselves, and by their intransigence, continuing to sink our economy. On the outside, our involvement in the Middle East continues to be a swirling vortex, and the more we spend, the less we seem to achieve. By squandering our treasure against unseen and often duplicitous enemies, we fulfill the very goals of terrorists – to destroy our financial foundation, and in doing so, rob us of the desire to interfere with their plans for domination.

Charles Ponzi would be proud to see how our government has adopted his financial strategies. We’ve built pension plans, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, bond issues and other programs that have morphed into financially ruinous schemes that count on tomorrow’s revenue to pay today’s bills. We talk of many of these programs as “entitlements,” and lose sight of the fact that for many of us, they are investments that we have faithfully made, while our government hasn’t kept its side of the bargain. The very idea that we can continue to raise the debt ceiling with no viable plan to pay off the debt should be ringing loud and clear in the heads of every ethically-minded individual.

Our great nation is in danger of collapsing under its own weight and our experiment in democracy may not survive. The debt we’ve run up, the regulations we’ve entangled ourselves with, the underfunded entitlements and subsidies we’ve created with incentives to game the system, are all piling up on top of us. Our government seems to be good at placing more burden on its citizens, especially in good times, but seldom takes any of it away, even after it’s proven to be a failure or its usefulness is diminished. In addition, the Baby Boomers (of which I am one), who are responsible for much of this dysfunction, are causing a surge in expense and a shortfall in revenue as they leave the workforce and move into retirement.

It is clear that our problems didn’t materialize overnight. Expecting them to disintegrate overnight is pure folly. Similarly, expecting reduced expense alone, or increased revenue by itself, to solve our problems in the short term is not realistic either. We need a comprehensive balanced approach to move the country in the right direction, and we need it now. Revenue increases need not be permanent, while spending cuts can and should be. We have to realize that a plan of such import will take some time to implement, and even longer to have the desired effects. So we’ll have to be patient, and we’ll probably have to do without for a while. And we must all be willing to share the pain and sacrifice.

But we must have a plan, and we must have the resolve to see it through. In the meantime, the increased debt ceiling will provide some necessary breathing room. It’s long past time for our elected officials to get serious about reducing our debt and living within our means. Time is running out for them to find some common high ground, before the rising tide drowns us all.

The Healthcare Debat-cle

A couple of conservative friends recently shared a pair of YouTube videos with me entitled, “Senior Citizen Speaks Out On Healthcare Bill.” In them, John C. Crawford of Texas blasts the bill in a compelling story, but unfortunately, I think at least half of it is built upon misinformation. I've watched these videos several times, and searched the H.R. 3200 document for the "exact excerpts," which don't exist. Some of the citations appear very similar to a viral email that FactCheck.org debunked most of in "Twenty-Six Lies about H.R. 3200."

It's amazing to me how someone can say, with a straight face, that something is not being taken out of context, when that's precisely what is being done. I'll accept that this man is a genuine person, and that his story is real. But what irks me is that he seems to be reading from some right wing interpretive (and creative) document and taking it at face value. Opinions are like epoxy: they start with a combination of basic elements, and harden when a strong catalyst is added. It’s ironic that as humans, we are endowed with the incomparable ability to think for ourselves, but many of us are encumbered by the incomprehensible tendency to avoid doing so.

Mr. Crawford makes a big deal of the "Death Counseling" concept which sounds an awful lot like the "Death Panels" we've heard so much about. The death counseling provisions of H.R. 3200 are as innocuous as a summer breeze and as common sense as coming in out of the rain if you want to stay dry. They merely allow payment to doctors if they provide counseling on end-of-life issues. I recently lost my father after a 5-year battle with lung cancer and its side-effects. He went through so much, and so much of it proved unnecessary. If he, and we, had known what was in store for him and what his options were, his suffering would have been greatly reduced, he would have been more at peace, and it would have cost a whole lot less. He had a living will, but it wasn't really clear. He was lucid to the end, and I tried to have a discussion with him about what kind of care he wanted. His hearing was just about gone, and he asked with a quizzical look, "What kind of stairs do I want?" When we finally cleared that up, he said, "You'll know what to do when it's time." Well, I didn't, and I wish we'd had professional help. A couple of his doctors hinted at things regarding end-of-life, but when we pressed them for recommendations, they backed off quickly.

A couple of things President Obama said in his address to Congress about healthcare reform keep me optimistic. First, he said, "I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last." Second, he pointed out the obvious, that the spiraling cost of healthcare (like our deficits) is unsustainable. Third, he acknowledged that there are people on both side of the aisle who are obstacles to progress. And fourth, he said, "I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch." I'm very much for healthcare reform, and support the concepts that Obama spoke of in his address to Congress. However, I have a healthy skepticism, and want to know more precisely how things will work, and more precisely how they will be paid for. Being told that it will work and that it won't cost taxpayers a dime doesn't do it for me. The idea of offsetting much of the cost by stopping excesses, abuses and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid doesn’t do it for me either, since we shouldn’t be paying for such waste in the first place. It also doesn’t give me much confidence that government can manage a new program any better.

In reading some of the misquotated citations from H.R. 3200, I actually found that I was impressed with the depth of understanding of the authors. Instead of finding some covert, clever language, designed to create a foundation for socialized medicine, I found some reasonable concepts to allow individuals to make up their own minds (if they'd only choose to do so). For those who find the terms of H.R. 3200 to be deleterious to their health and welfare, I'd encourage them to read the terms of their free market insurance policy. That would be an eye-opener.

I think the root of our healthcare problem is in misapplied incentives. Doctors are incentivized to prescribe unnecessary drugs and perform unnecessary procedures to protect themselves from lawsuits - a perversion of preventive medicine - prevention of lawsuits trumping prevention of disease. Pharmaceutical companies are incentivized to make as much money as they can in the short time that they have market exclusivity, due to the pressures that are building to allow more and earlier generics and foreign sources; as a result of the short term thinking, R&D is suffering, and new products aren't forthcoming. Hospitals and clinics are incentivized to perform unnecessary procedures to pay for the expensive equipment they have and the fancy new facilities they're building to meet the needs of a clientele that wants the very best. And on and on...

I don’t agree with a “government option.” Government has no business running a business when there are plenty of businesses that are capable of providing service. What is needed is regulation - government’s insurance role should be to insure that there’s a level playing field and that nobody is denied coverage; any insurer must provide coverage for high and low risk alike. To allow the greatest competition, purchasing of insurance across state lines should be encouraged, not forbidden. Government should define a minimum (not minimal) standard of care (including end-of-life) that insurance companies must comply with. Beyond that, people can pay for whatever additional services they want, either through additional insurance or out of their own pockets.

Government should also define or adopt medical practice standards for all conditions, which doctors’ practice or malpractice should be measured against. Malpractice lawsuits should be strictly limited to illegal practices and gross negligence. Any punitive damages should go into a fund to pay for insuring those who can’t afford it. As long as doctors adhere to defined standards of practice, they should be protected from suit.

While I share the concerns and skepticism of many, I don't subscribe to the notion that healthcare can't be fixed so we shouldn't try. There is a lot of misinformation out there, on both sides, but the great thing about our country is that everyone gets to have their say. Out of that, I hope, will come a compromise solution that does the greatest good for the greatest number of people. But my hopes will only be realized if we think for ourselves, and “build on what works and fix what doesn't."

The Presidential Race

The 2008 Presidential race has brought to front and center something that many thought would never be an issue: the race of the President. We’ve come a long way in the last fifty years, but we still have a long way to go. As enlightened as we think we are, many of us still harbor some latent prejudices, and they cloud our judgment. With the Presidential election upon us, we may soon see where we are in this continuum.

The last three generations have seen a tremendous shift in our society. For those of us in the middle, “Baby-boomers,” mostly, the greatest shift occurred as we were growing into adulthood during the tumultuous 50s, 60s and 70s. Our parents and their forebears grew up more isolated, and our children (and now their children, a fourth generation) have been more exposed to the blending that has been taking place in our melting pot of a nation. Our society is becoming more homogeneous, not in terms of class and social status, but in terms of the differences between peoples. However, some cultural and ethnic differences remain, and they still tend to divide us.

One thing that continues to divide America, and indeed the world, is the very notion of preserving ethnicity. While it is important to remember our roots and keep our cultural heritages alive, we must not continue to isolate ourselves in our ethnic silos. Celebrating various cultural heritages can be enriching and entertaining for everyone.

For the enlightened among us, it’s no longer adequate to think in terms of tolerance – we need to do better. We must learn to accept and respect our ethnic and cultural differences, and understand that each of us sees things uniquely, viewed through the prism of our individual experiences and what we are taught.

Born in the 50s, I came of age as the civil rights movement changed the course of our great country. I witnessed the acts of civil disobedience that exploded into lawlessness and chaos, from Rosa Parks’ refusal to ride in the back of the bus, to Martin Luther King’s assassination, to the riots that followed, to the civil unrest that continued through the Vietnam War era. The civil rights movement was a social revolution of sorts, and we came out the other side of it with a different perspective. We began to realize that in this country we thought so advanced, with opportunity so equal, things weren’t as advanced or equal as we had believed. As the next generation began to germinate, though, this different perspective became genetically encoded as this group grew to be less discerning of differences.

There are many differences that are worth preserving: right and wrong, child and adult, Democrat and Republican… But at our core as human beings, we’re all people. Race, like religion, sex, and age, should not be a determinant in elections, business, education, or rights of any kind. None of us gets to choose our parentage or the circumstances of our birth, so we’ve got to make the best of who and what we are. Of course, as a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant, middle-aged male, that’s easy for me to say.

During the primaries and the Presidential election campaign, a lot has been said about Barack Obama becoming the first black president, and Senator Obama doesn’t dispute it. He refers to himself, rightfully so, as African-American. I’ve never cared for that politically correct term, but if anyone is African-American, it’s Barack Obama – son of a black African man and a white American woman. In his own words, he’s “an American with the blood of Africa coursing through his veins.” But if we have to label him, why can’t we just see him as the first Hawaiian president? After all, he was born in Honolulu!

This election demonstrates that we’re moving in the right direction. In an era when people of all races, religions, sexes and orientations are finding doors opening, the fact that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin have reached where they are is testimony. But for those of us who remember how things were before the social revolution, continuing to think and talk about the differences between peoples only reinforces a latent prejudice within us. Senator McCain’s campaign has sought to catalyze a reaction with intimations that Senator Obama is somehow different. We need to focus on what we have in common, how we are the same, and how we are all in this together.

Having come to this enlightened realization, I recently found myself needing to identify my race on an application, among the choices: “White, African-American, Latino, Asian or Other;” I thought about it for a moment, chose “Other,” and wrote in next to it, “Human.” When I vote in this year’s Presidential election, I 'll take one step further, and cast my vote for the man who embodies the greatest hope for our future and the future of humanity.

The Terrorists Within

This was published as and op-ed in the October 30, 2008 Trenton Times.

After eight years under a hapless President George W. Bush, I was looking forward to this year’s presidential election with great optimism. Now the anticipation is giving way to frustration and disillusionment, as the candidates, their party machinery and the political system itself focus too often on tearing down rather than building up. Even a man with the strength of convictions of maverick John McCain can’t avoid desperate acts in the face of possible defeat, and Barack Obama and his message of hope can’t withstand the wrecking ball forever.

One of the key issues early in this campaign, and a cornerstone of the Republican party’s platform, has been the war against terrorism. Terrorism is all about putting fear in the minds of a population, so that it acts irrationally and squanders its resources on the wrong things. Ironically, instilling fear is a tool that Republicans seem to wield expertly, in casting aspersions on their Democratic opponents. The Democrats seem less comfortable with this tool, but use it nonetheless. It doesn’t matter that truth is twisted or deformed in the process – as long as it achieves the aggressor’s aim. This form of terrorism is insidious, and ultimately, very harmful. Even our most compelling current challenge, the global economic crisis, has fallen victim to this form of terrorism, as partisanship crept into the discussion and fanned the flames of fear.

It seems that Republicans view a good offense as the best defense, and conversely, Democrats see a good defense as the best offense. What often results from this is that Republicans go into the attack mode first, and try to draw the Democrats into the fray. Democrats, in trying to fend off the attacks, seem weak by comparison. When Republicans attack, they often allege character and personal flaws (“socialism,” “elitist,” “palling around with terrorists,” etc.). When Democrats become the aggressors, their attacks generally seem more about policy differences (“out of touch,” “four more years,” “doesn’t get it,” etc.), and are therefore somewhat less personal.

In effect, these tactics are designed to plant negative thoughts in the minds of voters, either through innuendo or direct accusations. For an event of such import and such historic significance as this election, that’s a sad commentary. Our lives can be much better when we work together and accentuate the positives. Synergy is all about the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, and this unproductive discourse we’re seeing is, at best, a zero sum game. At worst, it’s a downward spiral toward collective failure.

Both candidates have adopted “change” as a theme, although one could argue that Senator Obama adopted it and Senator McCain co-opted it. The change I seek is to find ways to have civil discourse over issues that are important. The loudest voices aren’t necessarily the right ones to listen to. Unfortunately, we don’t often have all the facts, and the mantras that we hear begin to take on an air of reality as they strike chords that harmonize with some of our own thoughts and preconceptions.

I’ve read Barack Obama’s books, not out of blind loyalty to a man whose words resonated with me, but out of curiosity about the man behind those words. I’d read a couple of excerpts of one of his books, and Joe Biden was right – Obama is incredibly articulate. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Obama talked about his early life, and his search for self which led him to learn as much as he could about his estranged father. In his second book, The Audacity of Hope, he outlined his political and social beliefs in self-effacing and brutally honest terms. He acknowledged his shortcomings, but made no excuses. His words paint a picture of an America that is fair, civil, strong and prosperous, and country and society that all Americans can be even more proud of.

For once, I’d like to see a presidential campaign where the candidates try to win the voters’ support by focusing on what they stand for, rather than trying to malign their opponent’s character, background or motivations. I hope that Barack Obama realizes that there are many of us who are starving to hear of the good that can be done, and notwithstanding the low-road campaign he’s been forced to turn to, will restore his positive message and return to the high road once this is all over. I hope he truly remembers where he came from and his reason for running in the first place. If he does, and if he prevails in the election, our great country will see a resurgence in the world and a return of our standing as a global leader. If he forgets, or if he doesn’t succeed in the election, I fear for our future, because the terrorists within will have won.

A Bitter Bill to Swallow

This was published as an op-ed in the October 2, 2008 Trenton Times, in response to the failed vote in the House of Representatives on the economic "bailout" plan, in advance of the revote expected on October 3.


There are many words in the English language that have dual meanings, but the duplicity of one word, “oversight,” is at the heart of the singular most important debate of our time. Our economy is in shambles, in large part due to the lack of oversight by our government, which allowed this perfect storm to brew without taking any definitive action. It seems, however, that there has been plenty of oversight, of the “Oops, I guess that one got by me” variety.

While few Americans are thrilled about the thought of investing $700 billion with no guarantee that any of that investment will be worth anything in the future, there seems to be little doubt that something urgently needs to be done. The mere failure of Congress to pass the “bailout” plan caused a one-day drop in market value of over $1 trillion. My guess is that when Congress reconvenes, it will reach agreement on the plan, repackaged as a “rescue” plan, with a couple of face-saving tweaks to give some of the previous opponents cover. This bitter bill to swallow is perhaps all that stands between us and the abyss.

What should have been a non-partisan call-to-arms has devolved into a childish morass of finger-pointing and name-calling. Our Republican President, as lame a duck as he may be, tried to rally the Congressional forces together to do the right thing, and do it quickly. There can be no denying that the current economic debacle is having global consequences, and our already shaky world standing is taking yet another hit. Nevertheless, the President’s call was met with backlash, even from his own party.

It’s amazing that Senator McCain “suspended” his campaign to go back to Washington to help get the bill passed, with the result being that 2/3 of his party’s contingent in the House of Representatives voted against it. At the same time, Senator Obama decided to remain on the sidelines and leave the legislative action to those who have been most engaged, and 60% of his party voted for the bill. The same day that Senator McCain said he was “suspending” his campaign, he appeared at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting and gave what was arguably the best speech on the economy of his campaign, and made a big point of his personal magnanimity in putting his campaign on hold.

Despite Senator McCain’s stated desire to eliminate partisanship from the discussions about how to resolve this problem, it seems that his involvement has done anything but that. The plan, put forth by the Republican administration, went down in defeat. When the votes were counted on Monday, Senator McCain’s party came up far short of the number that needed to be delivered, and the Democrats came up with more than should have been necessary. In the insanity that ensued, Republicans accused Democrats of killing this vital bill.

Our economy is teetering precariously on the brink of disaster. As we’ve heard ad nauseum, “It’s not just about Wall Street, it’s about Main Street.” At the heart of the problem is the credit market, which provides money for people and companies to buy things, so that everyone benefits. People benefit by being able to have things today and pay for them in the future. Companies benefit in the same way, but also by having working capital to conduct business. Certainly, the credit market mess has an impact on Wall Street, because the companies that depend on credit to do business become less profitable when they can’t borrow to meet their normal business needs. The solution needs to be one that shores up the credit market, so that the rest of the economy isn’t held hostage. Then we can figure out a way to make sure this can’t happen again. This is a time for first aid – the patient is bleeding to death.

Congress needs to pass the bill, whether it’s a “bailout” bill or a “rescue” bill. But in doing so, it needs to ensure that it has the power to control the way the funds are allocated, and maximize the possible return on our citizenry’s unprecedented financial investment. Congress clearly cannot give a blank check to the Treasury, and hope that it doesn’t gamble all our money away.

So, in the end, what remains to be seen with whatever solution Congress adopts is whether, in this instance, Congressional “oversight” becomes a responsibility or continues to be an excuse.