As is the standard in Washington these days, it turns out that both sides (Democrats and Republicans respectively) were wrong on what happened in Benghazi, Libya. As The New York Times reported today, the attack in Benghazi was neither the work of Al Qaeda nor was it spontaneous in nature.
The former Secretary to the UN, now National Security Adviser, Susan Rice's notorious battery of interviews in which she said that the attack was motivated by a video that insulted Islam turns out to be true according to the report. However, local militias certainly planned and coordinated it as opposed to being a spontaneous event. This incorrect second part speaks to the Administration's (of which Ms. Rice was a spokesperson) misreading of the overall security situation not only in Benghazi but in all of Libya and that is not to be taken lightly. Never mind that it was obvious to the locals that the mission in Benghazi was a CIA outpost instead of a diplomatic U.S. mission - spies exposed are obviously vulnerable, any movie would tell you that.
We're not as apologist as Mr. Gregory in citing early stages and fog-of-war reasons for getting the information wrong because it puts into question the validity and trustworthiness of the statements, but there is a disparity between the time it takes to get the information correct and when it needs to be delivered. The Administration had to speak before it had all the facts.
On the other hand, House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) sat in the studio contesting the report's investigated conclusion that Al Qaeda was not involved in the attack. We did not expect Mr. Issa to reverse his position after holding extensive hearing on the matter of whether the terrorist organization was behind the attack that occurred on September 11th, 2012, in which he concluded before the hearings were even held that they were responsible, the video played no part and that there was a cover-up at the highest level of government - opinions that he maintained this morning.
"No chance" were the words that David Kirkpatrick, who reported the story for The Times, used for the claim that Al Qaeda was involved, but Mr. Issa seems to only want to see the select facts that support his interpreted conclusion, and this morning dismissing the report as after-the-fact and therefore not accurate. Not to dishonor the memory of those who died in Benghazi, but Mr. Issa's partisanship is so blind that when the date of September 11th is uttered, he immediately thinks 2012 instead of 2001. That's not to say that the date was coincidental, but more like convenient. Benghazi should have never been a partisan issue, but he contributed to it being one more than anyone else. We agree with Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) that Mr. Issa created an unnecessary distraction for a year, but he shouldn't have used the word 'crusade' to describe Mr. Issa's position. Of all words, it perpetuates our cultural insensitivity to Islam. Not realizing the historical significance of that word for Muslims speaks to the underestimation of the reaction to a video that insults Islam, something Mr. Issa said the Administration used as a talking point.
It was a local terrorist attack on a poorly disguised and defended CIA outpost, but not an Al Qaeda one as Mr. Issa has claimed. This is a clear illustration of both sides acting of the consequences of political prosecution instead of what they should have done which was simply get to the bottom of what happened and to make sure it didn't repeat itself.
Professor of History at George Mason University, Dr.
Peter Stearns called Washington's political paralysis an embarrassment to the United States around the world. Well, so is the way our political leaders handled what happened in Benghazi, more concerned with political blame than the fact that 4 Americans died. It's speaks definitively to the round table's discussion about the 'state of the world' in 2014 and the position of the United States.
Despite all the in-fighting, the United States is in relatively good economic shape comparatively to many other countries, and this is what the U.S. should leverage more for influence. That along with robust diplomacy is the boldness that the panel was referring to. As other countries advance, Robin Wright mentioned Brazil and Iran, they'll want a say in a more and more integrated world economy that's why in the long game, it's smart to engage Iran. Image 10 to 15 years from now, Iran potentially being a reliable market for American products.
However, where the U.S. falls short with Iranian diplomacy is not thinking more regionally, and what we mean is also openly discussing Iran's proxy army called Hezbollah and the funding for it. That would be bold diplomacy, something we believe Secretary Kerry is capable of. Let's face it, if Hezbollah weren't involved in the Syrian civil war, there would be a lot more clarity on a quicker outcome.
The Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Elliott Abrams, said the U.S. is receding in the Middle East and it would seem that way with the Saudis and Egyptians becoming more and more indifferent toward U.S. relations. However, we see it more of a regrouping while changing strategy in the region. For the past decade-plus, we've been lighting it up militarily and where has it gotten us? Beside, what have the Saudis given the United States lately? Some would answer, 15 of 19.
But that's not the answer, the Saudis have given the U.S. the leverage to get everyone to the table. Should the U.S. trust the Saudis; perhaps not but they also shouldn't let the alliance drift and instead use it diplomatically to achieve first a civil coexistence in the region before you can even discuss sustained peace.
The issue of income inequality not only in the U.S. but throughout the world will become an even bigger issue in 2014 than it started to be this year. In The New York Times Benghazi article, there is even mention that the attack was also motivated, be it a small part, by the reluctance of American business investment. Economic opportunity or the lack thereof plays at the core of tragedy and it took Pope Francis to bring it front and center.
The other issue that will continue to grow in stature in terms of global debate will be surveillance. Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties Union who also serves as Edward Snowden's legal advisor pointed out the one for sure thing that Mr. Snowden got right, which was that he brought the American people into the conversation; it's how he 'won.' Also, Mr. Wizner made the important distinction between the Constitutionality of surveilling one American versus all of them, which we should all keep in mind.
Despite what Justice William Pauley of the U.S. District Court ruled, it's clear to a majority of Americans that the NSA has run amok, and something has to be done to curtail unchecked surveillance power.
With all this talk about being down economically and big brother continually looking over your shoulder, we're optimist for 2014 because we are in fact collectively more in the know about these major issues and having more information about something always leads to a positive.
Happy New Year
Round Table: Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson; NBC News Chief Foreign
Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell; Council on Foreign Relations
Senior Fellow Elliott Abrams; Woodrow Wilson Center Senior Fellow Robin
Wright; Provost and Professor of History at George Mason University, Dr.
Peter Stearns
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Sunday, December 22, 2013
12.22.13: Managing Healthcare and the NSA
Rationality creates certainty and from the interview with the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund Christine Lagarde, certainty is what the world economy is relieved to see from a U.S. Congress that acted rationally when it created a bi-partisan budget deal.
As the world's richest country (the economic leader), the United States has to eliminate fear, as Ms. Lagarde put it even though as Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) noted Congress agreed to raise spending and raise taxes in this budget deal. If you're a conservative that sounds bad, but remember that the budget deal has net deficit reduction. Also, Congress working together along with the Fed buying less and less debt are indicators, as Ms. Lagarde noted leads to predictions of a stronger 2014 economically because it will lead to corporations investing and hiring more. In the United States, the last economic quarter showed a 4.1% growth and unemployment is at a 5-year low at 7% (still not good enough).
Anecdotally, there is Senator Jim Imhofe (R-OK) who recently, tragically lost a son in a plane crash. This column rarely agrees with Mr. Imhofe's policy positions, but he has our sincerely condolences. In the interview, Mr. Imhofe said that he might get in trouble for saying so, but admitted that more of his Democratic colleagues reached out to him than did Republicans. A sad byproduct from a sad story is that this is 'surprising.' But what Mr. Imhofe concluded was that listening to his colleagues on the other side of the aisle and trying to work together is a good thing; this coming from one of the most partisan politicians in the Senate.
It all sounds like good news with the economic indicators noted above along with a Stock Market that is closing at record levels, but these indicators are not applying to the majority of Americans or citizens of the world for that matter because the income inequality gap is continually widening. It's a topic that United States politicians simply will not touch. Republicans believe for the most part that it doesn't exist or is simply luck-of-the-draw and Democrats hate being accused of class warfare and don't have enough political muscle, which limits their desire to give more support to low-income families through raising taxes.
The United States isn't close to it, but there is a breaking point where the fabric of society is at stake as Ms. Lagarde said. You see already happening now in many countries where civil society is breaking down because of lack of economic opportunity and furthermore a fundamental lack of hope that it will get better.
Where Americans keenly have a lack of hope is in the confidence that the United States can positively move the country ahead in a competent and trustworthy manner. When we say 'competent,' think healthcare, and for 'trustworthy,' there's the NSA of course. Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the Administration has no choice but to get it right, but really the whole United States government has no choice to get it right, and that means that no matter how many changes need to be made to get it right, it simply has to happen. As Senator Coburn stated, the government can not run one sixth of the economy (approximately 17 percent). Fine, but it is the government's job to lower that percentage. There was lots of talk of other countries' healthcare costs comparatively to the United States, and the reason that they are considerably lower is because they are government-run, single payer systems.
That's not what Americans want, unless you're 65 or older and on Medicare. Without single payer, you keep the insurance companies (the private sector) profit in place, but to do that you have to create a mandate to get everyone insured while keeping those companies viable. As Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) rightly noted, the individual mandate is tied to accepting people with preexisting conditions in as much as you can not have one without the other. So fixes are needed, or a better option, which Republicans haven't come up with. And given the lack of a viable alternative Republicans, like Anna Navarro, can not complain that an aspect of the healthcare act doesn't work when they don't want the entire thing in the first place.
And as for the NSA, that is just one big ball of ugly. Just consider what Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said about the agency that collects all of our private data and conversations that a subcontractor stole all of their secrets, the extent of which they don't even know. David Gregory noted that the Constitution prohibits the government from being put in a position of abuse. This is clear where the NSA sits, despite Congressman Peter King saying that no abuse by the NSA has been found.
Clearly, no one is looking.
Round Table: New York Times columnist David Brooks, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Republican strategist Ana Navarro
As the world's richest country (the economic leader), the United States has to eliminate fear, as Ms. Lagarde put it even though as Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) noted Congress agreed to raise spending and raise taxes in this budget deal. If you're a conservative that sounds bad, but remember that the budget deal has net deficit reduction. Also, Congress working together along with the Fed buying less and less debt are indicators, as Ms. Lagarde noted leads to predictions of a stronger 2014 economically because it will lead to corporations investing and hiring more. In the United States, the last economic quarter showed a 4.1% growth and unemployment is at a 5-year low at 7% (still not good enough).
Anecdotally, there is Senator Jim Imhofe (R-OK) who recently, tragically lost a son in a plane crash. This column rarely agrees with Mr. Imhofe's policy positions, but he has our sincerely condolences. In the interview, Mr. Imhofe said that he might get in trouble for saying so, but admitted that more of his Democratic colleagues reached out to him than did Republicans. A sad byproduct from a sad story is that this is 'surprising.' But what Mr. Imhofe concluded was that listening to his colleagues on the other side of the aisle and trying to work together is a good thing; this coming from one of the most partisan politicians in the Senate.
It all sounds like good news with the economic indicators noted above along with a Stock Market that is closing at record levels, but these indicators are not applying to the majority of Americans or citizens of the world for that matter because the income inequality gap is continually widening. It's a topic that United States politicians simply will not touch. Republicans believe for the most part that it doesn't exist or is simply luck-of-the-draw and Democrats hate being accused of class warfare and don't have enough political muscle, which limits their desire to give more support to low-income families through raising taxes.
The United States isn't close to it, but there is a breaking point where the fabric of society is at stake as Ms. Lagarde said. You see already happening now in many countries where civil society is breaking down because of lack of economic opportunity and furthermore a fundamental lack of hope that it will get better.
Where Americans keenly have a lack of hope is in the confidence that the United States can positively move the country ahead in a competent and trustworthy manner. When we say 'competent,' think healthcare, and for 'trustworthy,' there's the NSA of course. Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the Administration has no choice but to get it right, but really the whole United States government has no choice to get it right, and that means that no matter how many changes need to be made to get it right, it simply has to happen. As Senator Coburn stated, the government can not run one sixth of the economy (approximately 17 percent). Fine, but it is the government's job to lower that percentage. There was lots of talk of other countries' healthcare costs comparatively to the United States, and the reason that they are considerably lower is because they are government-run, single payer systems.
That's not what Americans want, unless you're 65 or older and on Medicare. Without single payer, you keep the insurance companies (the private sector) profit in place, but to do that you have to create a mandate to get everyone insured while keeping those companies viable. As Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) rightly noted, the individual mandate is tied to accepting people with preexisting conditions in as much as you can not have one without the other. So fixes are needed, or a better option, which Republicans haven't come up with. And given the lack of a viable alternative Republicans, like Anna Navarro, can not complain that an aspect of the healthcare act doesn't work when they don't want the entire thing in the first place.
And as for the NSA, that is just one big ball of ugly. Just consider what Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said about the agency that collects all of our private data and conversations that a subcontractor stole all of their secrets, the extent of which they don't even know. David Gregory noted that the Constitution prohibits the government from being put in a position of abuse. This is clear where the NSA sits, despite Congressman Peter King saying that no abuse by the NSA has been found.
Clearly, no one is looking.
Round Table: New York Times columnist David Brooks, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Republican strategist Ana Navarro
Sunday, December 15, 2013
12.15.13: Compromise and Privacy
Republicans in Congress are not yet ready to utter the word 'compromise,' but most have finally realized that unless they act in the spirit of that notion, their long-term prospects for winning national elections will continue to look more like a long shot.
The Washington Post's Katleen Parker said that there isn't much public interest in the budget, and nor should there be. It should be something that Congress simply gets down without much fanfare. The reality is that it had gotten to a point where they couldn't even compromise enough to do budgetary housekeeping.
However, with the support of House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Budget Committee Chair Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) anchored the creation of a bi-partisan budget deal with Senator Patty Murray (D-WA). The compromise budget served as a small, but very significant, step in body's attempt to reestablish trust with the American people and elevate a nine percent approval rating.
In more practical terms, what is does do is eliminate the possibility of a government shutdown for two years, a legislative stick in the eye of the tea party caucus who no longer have leverage to irrationally tank the world economy if they do not get everything that they want. We get at least two years of peace as far as shutdowns go; call it a well-needed extended break. Merry Christmas to us.
At the end of this clip, a reporter asks Mr. Boehner if he's telling these Tea Party Outside Interest Group to stand down, and he replies, "I don't care what they do," meaning that whatever they do, he'll challenge the credibility of it.
But let's not get too excited that this is going to start some new era of cooperation... please. We have a long way to go before this civil war in the Republican Party plays itself out. The next major battle will be the Republican Congressional primary races in 2014.
Tea Party groups, as it has been reported, have heavily criticized the budget deal and Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) stated that 'as an American he could not vote for it,' something that Mr. Gregory had to correct himself on, because the compromise with Democrats was that there would be some sequester relief.
But in the end, the deal is a Republican win because even though it's modest. There is a net deficit reduction as Mr. Ryan pointed out. This helps Establishment Republicans because now they can say we worked with the other side and we got more of what we wanted than Democrats did. And Democrats should be more than willing to do these kinds of deals right now to help Establishment Republicans regain rationality within their party. Something that will move this process along that was mentioned by Governor Richardson during the round table discussion was that Jon Podesta, President Clinton's former Chief of Staff, has been working in the White House and communicating with Congress to facilitate these kinds of compromises, and to straighten out a disfunctional operation that is the Obama Administration.
As Senator Murray pointed out, Congress had created some much uncertainty in the business community with a governing-by-crisis approach that it rendered the prospects for real growth very dim. With all interested parties knowing all too well of this reality, Mr. Ryan, under cover fire from the House Speaker, worked out a compromise.
However, speaking about what Congress knows and doesn't, it doesn't seem like it knows much when it comes to surveillance, spying, and the NSA's data gathering.
Former head of the NSA and CIA, General Michael Hayden said that he agreed with the proposal to overhaul the parameters in which the NSA can gather information on U.S. citizens, but how do you put that genie back in the bottle? He said that he hasn't seen any abuse in the NSA's gathering of information, but could see the potential for abuse. The General is speaking in terms of what the courts have authorized, but what about the abusive nature of the intelligence gathering itself that has been brought to light by Edward Snowden? A debate as to whether the NSA should have this authority couldn't have happened due to the power of the Patriot act so really there is no dismantling of the surveillance state at this point. And to regulate it, legislators have to know the full extent of the program which they do not... Plausible deniability is political bliss.
General Hayden talked about the need for a discussion on the cultural understanding of privacy, but what he was really saying is that we need to redefine what, in fact, privacy is.
Round Table: Former New Mexico Gov. and ambassador Bill Richardson, TIME magazine Managing Editor Nancy Gibbs, Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker and Nation Public Radio’s Steve Inskeep
The Washington Post's Katleen Parker said that there isn't much public interest in the budget, and nor should there be. It should be something that Congress simply gets down without much fanfare. The reality is that it had gotten to a point where they couldn't even compromise enough to do budgetary housekeeping.
However, with the support of House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Budget Committee Chair Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) anchored the creation of a bi-partisan budget deal with Senator Patty Murray (D-WA). The compromise budget served as a small, but very significant, step in body's attempt to reestablish trust with the American people and elevate a nine percent approval rating.
In more practical terms, what is does do is eliminate the possibility of a government shutdown for two years, a legislative stick in the eye of the tea party caucus who no longer have leverage to irrationally tank the world economy if they do not get everything that they want. We get at least two years of peace as far as shutdowns go; call it a well-needed extended break. Merry Christmas to us.
At the end of this clip, a reporter asks Mr. Boehner if he's telling these Tea Party Outside Interest Group to stand down, and he replies, "I don't care what they do," meaning that whatever they do, he'll challenge the credibility of it.
But let's not get too excited that this is going to start some new era of cooperation... please. We have a long way to go before this civil war in the Republican Party plays itself out. The next major battle will be the Republican Congressional primary races in 2014.
Tea Party groups, as it has been reported, have heavily criticized the budget deal and Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) stated that 'as an American he could not vote for it,' something that Mr. Gregory had to correct himself on, because the compromise with Democrats was that there would be some sequester relief.
But in the end, the deal is a Republican win because even though it's modest. There is a net deficit reduction as Mr. Ryan pointed out. This helps Establishment Republicans because now they can say we worked with the other side and we got more of what we wanted than Democrats did. And Democrats should be more than willing to do these kinds of deals right now to help Establishment Republicans regain rationality within their party. Something that will move this process along that was mentioned by Governor Richardson during the round table discussion was that Jon Podesta, President Clinton's former Chief of Staff, has been working in the White House and communicating with Congress to facilitate these kinds of compromises, and to straighten out a disfunctional operation that is the Obama Administration.
As Senator Murray pointed out, Congress had created some much uncertainty in the business community with a governing-by-crisis approach that it rendered the prospects for real growth very dim. With all interested parties knowing all too well of this reality, Mr. Ryan, under cover fire from the House Speaker, worked out a compromise.
However, speaking about what Congress knows and doesn't, it doesn't seem like it knows much when it comes to surveillance, spying, and the NSA's data gathering.
Former head of the NSA and CIA, General Michael Hayden said that he agreed with the proposal to overhaul the parameters in which the NSA can gather information on U.S. citizens, but how do you put that genie back in the bottle? He said that he hasn't seen any abuse in the NSA's gathering of information, but could see the potential for abuse. The General is speaking in terms of what the courts have authorized, but what about the abusive nature of the intelligence gathering itself that has been brought to light by Edward Snowden? A debate as to whether the NSA should have this authority couldn't have happened due to the power of the Patriot act so really there is no dismantling of the surveillance state at this point. And to regulate it, legislators have to know the full extent of the program which they do not... Plausible deniability is political bliss.
General Hayden talked about the need for a discussion on the cultural understanding of privacy, but what he was really saying is that we need to redefine what, in fact, privacy is.
Round Table: Former New Mexico Gov. and ambassador Bill Richardson, TIME magazine Managing Editor Nancy Gibbs, Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker and Nation Public Radio’s Steve Inskeep
Sunday, December 08, 2013
12.8.13: Nelson Mandela: Freedom and Equal Opportunity
South African President Jacob Zuma said, "Our nation has lost its greatest son. Our people have lost a father." Though he was solely referring to South Africans when he used the phrase 'our people,' we'd like to think that he was talking about all of humanity.
If inspiration were measured like gold, we'd all live in big houses from the courage and patience Nelson Mandela showed us. No one who is a true symbol of something, never aspires to be such, but Mr. Mandela will forever serve as a symbol of freedom and equal opportunity for the world.
We can offer little, if any, insight with regard to the life of Nelson Mandela and what he meant to the world; we wouldn't to presume to insult your intelligence and diminish his memory.
But Mr. Mandela's death makes us think of the very essence of what it means to have freedom and equal opportunity. We see the latter of the two systematically being replaced, or abridged, to only 'opportunity.' The lack of simple opportunity is chronically plaguing country's all over the world, and it's getting worse exponentially. When people around the world should be demanding an equal opportunity, we've been reduced to asking for any one, equal or not because the notion of opportunity is becoming more scarce. And if we keep going on in this direction, we'll bottom out in a place where we'll only have to hope for another individual to act and lead on the inspiration given to him or her by Mr. Mandela
Nelson Mandela
1918-2013
Postscript (a lighter note - sort of): We can say that the song "Sun City," written and produced by Steven Van Zandt for United Artists Against Apartheid, 1985, is the best mass-all-star collaboration recorded in pop music, much better than its contemporary rival "We Are the World," which has all the genre-varied artist conforming to one structure whereas "Sun City" incorporates several divergent music styles to complete one generous whole of a song.
If inspiration were measured like gold, we'd all live in big houses from the courage and patience Nelson Mandela showed us. No one who is a true symbol of something, never aspires to be such, but Mr. Mandela will forever serve as a symbol of freedom and equal opportunity for the world.
We can offer little, if any, insight with regard to the life of Nelson Mandela and what he meant to the world; we wouldn't to presume to insult your intelligence and diminish his memory.
But Mr. Mandela's death makes us think of the very essence of what it means to have freedom and equal opportunity. We see the latter of the two systematically being replaced, or abridged, to only 'opportunity.' The lack of simple opportunity is chronically plaguing country's all over the world, and it's getting worse exponentially. When people around the world should be demanding an equal opportunity, we've been reduced to asking for any one, equal or not because the notion of opportunity is becoming more scarce. And if we keep going on in this direction, we'll bottom out in a place where we'll only have to hope for another individual to act and lead on the inspiration given to him or her by Mr. Mandela
Nelson Mandela
1918-2013
Postscript (a lighter note - sort of): We can say that the song "Sun City," written and produced by Steven Van Zandt for United Artists Against Apartheid, 1985, is the best mass-all-star collaboration recorded in pop music, much better than its contemporary rival "We Are the World," which has all the genre-varied artist conforming to one structure whereas "Sun City" incorporates several divergent music styles to complete one generous whole of a song.
Sunday, December 01, 2013
12.1.13: Process of Difficulty
We start today's column with something that New York Times columnist David Brooks said, which was (and we're paraphrasing here) that government can not run something as complex as healthcare, and that there are certain things it's meant to do, just not healthcare. However, is it that governments simply can not do it, or is it just that the United States government can not do it? It seems as though the latter is the answer because in most other industrialized nations, there is universal healthcare. In the United States, implementation is difficult because insurance companies have to stay in the healthcare business.
With all the cancellations of policies, it hasn't been enough for the insurance companies to keep getting paid, but now it's also a matter of how much, and that's why it's difficult for the government to engineer a healthcare plan. Government is not going to confiscate your healthcare as Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) emphatically stated. Insurance companies now have to commit 85% of their collected premiums to care, which means less profits due to the Affordable Care Act. The cancellation of policies is retribution for that financial hit.
The reason that other countries' governments have made healthcare work is because they've taken the profit motive out of care. The Affordable Care Act will eventually work and the eventual consequence is that the United States will either move toward a single payer system or to the eventual end of employer-based healthcare. If you're calculating the American government as a whole getting more conservative (because of big monied interests) like we do then you have to figure on employer based insurance going away sometime in the future. Not in the next year but possibly 10 to 12 years down line is well within the realm of possibility. Those are all the 'pink slips' that Congressman Rogers was referring to.
[And is it just us that finds Congressman Rogers' entire complaint about the sites security readiness a completely joke, or what? Mr. Rogers, a former F.B.I. agent, endorses the NSA's data collection and surveillance activities - essentially spying on Americans, so we find it disingenuous that he would bring this up as a point of concern.]
It's a 'process of difficulty' as the Washington Post's Erza Klein described it. Case in point is the interview with Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York. He said that initially the bishops and the Catholic Church were in favor of the Affordable Care Act, but now are opposing the Obama Administration on it. One of the reasons the Cardinal cited was that the Affordable Care Act did not cover undocumented citizens. When President Obama took to the House floor to explain that the undocumented would not be covered, he was famously called a liar by Congressman Joe Wilson. It's a silly rhetorical argument that Father Dolan was making, but when in reality, it's all about birth control and limiting access to it for women. Father Dolan eloquently reiterated how Pope Francis wants to move beyond those debates but it's clear that the Church does not.
Today's real topic was 'Obamacare,' and whether it will work or not, but if government can be an agent of change. Unfortunately, the only one who thought government could have a positive effect was Democratic Mayor of Baltimore Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and sadly she sounded naive saying so. However, when someone sounds naive, it's because the person is emoting sympathy, and in this case sympathy for those who do not have healthcare. In today's America, sympathy isn't taken seriously. Fortunately for all of us whether we know it or not, Father Dolan's boss disagrees.
Roundtable: New York Times Columnist David Brooks; Democratic Mayor of Baltimore Stephanie Rawlings-Blake; NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell; and Political Director & Chief White House Correspondent for NBC, Chuck Todd.
With all the cancellations of policies, it hasn't been enough for the insurance companies to keep getting paid, but now it's also a matter of how much, and that's why it's difficult for the government to engineer a healthcare plan. Government is not going to confiscate your healthcare as Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) emphatically stated. Insurance companies now have to commit 85% of their collected premiums to care, which means less profits due to the Affordable Care Act. The cancellation of policies is retribution for that financial hit.
The reason that other countries' governments have made healthcare work is because they've taken the profit motive out of care. The Affordable Care Act will eventually work and the eventual consequence is that the United States will either move toward a single payer system or to the eventual end of employer-based healthcare. If you're calculating the American government as a whole getting more conservative (because of big monied interests) like we do then you have to figure on employer based insurance going away sometime in the future. Not in the next year but possibly 10 to 12 years down line is well within the realm of possibility. Those are all the 'pink slips' that Congressman Rogers was referring to.
[And is it just us that finds Congressman Rogers' entire complaint about the sites security readiness a completely joke, or what? Mr. Rogers, a former F.B.I. agent, endorses the NSA's data collection and surveillance activities - essentially spying on Americans, so we find it disingenuous that he would bring this up as a point of concern.]
It's a 'process of difficulty' as the Washington Post's Erza Klein described it. Case in point is the interview with Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York. He said that initially the bishops and the Catholic Church were in favor of the Affordable Care Act, but now are opposing the Obama Administration on it. One of the reasons the Cardinal cited was that the Affordable Care Act did not cover undocumented citizens. When President Obama took to the House floor to explain that the undocumented would not be covered, he was famously called a liar by Congressman Joe Wilson. It's a silly rhetorical argument that Father Dolan was making, but when in reality, it's all about birth control and limiting access to it for women. Father Dolan eloquently reiterated how Pope Francis wants to move beyond those debates but it's clear that the Church does not.
Today's real topic was 'Obamacare,' and whether it will work or not, but if government can be an agent of change. Unfortunately, the only one who thought government could have a positive effect was Democratic Mayor of Baltimore Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and sadly she sounded naive saying so. However, when someone sounds naive, it's because the person is emoting sympathy, and in this case sympathy for those who do not have healthcare. In today's America, sympathy isn't taken seriously. Fortunately for all of us whether we know it or not, Father Dolan's boss disagrees.
Roundtable: New York Times Columnist David Brooks; Democratic Mayor of Baltimore Stephanie Rawlings-Blake; NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell; and Political Director & Chief White House Correspondent for NBC, Chuck Todd.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
11.24.13: The Iranian Nuclear 'Agreement'
Never mind that "Meet The Press" is dark this week - good call there - instead of going dark next week after the holiday, take off this week and miss the biggest diplomatic story of the year.
Iran has agreed with a coalition of countries - the United States, France, Germany, Great Britain, Russia and China - to freeze parts of its nuclear program for the next six months while a permanent deal can be reached.
The other Sunday talk shows are blowing with debate as to whether this pause is one that is beneficial for furthering safety and security in the region. The first thing one has to say is that any diplomatic agreement between Iran and the West is a positive sign, but beyond that we don't find ourselves getting too excited.
In exchange for lifting about $6 billion in sanctioned assets, Iran will agree to stop building centrifuges, equipping a 'heavy water' nuclear plant, and dilute some of its highly enriched uranium. However, during this time the Iranians will continue to enrich uranium at lower levels for non-military use. All of this only serves as a temporary positive for both sides because for Iran, it's a small part of their nuclear program, and for the West the money is a small fraction of frozen Iranian assets. Make no mistake, do not call this accord 'historic.'
There is still much reason to be skeptical, not to trust, and to insist on verification. Beside, if the sanctions were severely crippling then Iran would not have been able to keep building centrifuges and enriching uranium - obviously not crippling enough to have an effect.
Anything short of Iranian dismantling their military nuclear program doesn't warrant a more permanent agreement, and maybe the Iranians do not realize it yet but its in their interest to not have a nuclear weapons program. We can't help but think of the bigger picture for Iranians. The citizenry, mostly young and educated, have a natural inclination and acceptance toward many aspects of Western culture and have the intellect to create a balance between that and their own. Being more integrated, these people will want a better life for themselves and the tide of this will eventually overcome all resistance. And the West and China, frankly, each want the business.
Given what we've just said about the Iranian people, we do not think they would actually launch or set off a nuclear weapon, however, Hezbollah would, and there's the rub. If the long-term goal is to have better relations and have Iran rejoin the international community then their ceasing of state-sponsored terrorism has to be part of the overall negotiations. Economic sanctions haven't stopped the Iranians from funding Hezbollah extremists who wouldn't have the moral intellect to understand why employing such a weapon is destructive beyond their comprehension.
And the 'resistance' we mentioned, inside Iran, is not going to go quietly meaning that hardline leaders do not want to capitulate to the West in any way on either support for Hezbollah (and Assad in Syria) and the nuclear question. Knowing this, its understandable that Prime Minister Netanyahu is condemning the agreement, but there has to be a first step of engagement that has to be diplomacy instead of a military first-engagement option.
A great agreement? Certainly not, but we would call it a good act of non-denominational faith.
Also part of the even larger picture for Iran, is why would they, being located on one of the most major active fault lines in the world, want a nuclear anything. Think about Fukushima [in Japan] and then think about an Iranian earthquake and a nuclear plant. Just saying.
Iran has agreed with a coalition of countries - the United States, France, Germany, Great Britain, Russia and China - to freeze parts of its nuclear program for the next six months while a permanent deal can be reached.
The other Sunday talk shows are blowing with debate as to whether this pause is one that is beneficial for furthering safety and security in the region. The first thing one has to say is that any diplomatic agreement between Iran and the West is a positive sign, but beyond that we don't find ourselves getting too excited.
In exchange for lifting about $6 billion in sanctioned assets, Iran will agree to stop building centrifuges, equipping a 'heavy water' nuclear plant, and dilute some of its highly enriched uranium. However, during this time the Iranians will continue to enrich uranium at lower levels for non-military use. All of this only serves as a temporary positive for both sides because for Iran, it's a small part of their nuclear program, and for the West the money is a small fraction of frozen Iranian assets. Make no mistake, do not call this accord 'historic.'
There is still much reason to be skeptical, not to trust, and to insist on verification. Beside, if the sanctions were severely crippling then Iran would not have been able to keep building centrifuges and enriching uranium - obviously not crippling enough to have an effect.
Anything short of Iranian dismantling their military nuclear program doesn't warrant a more permanent agreement, and maybe the Iranians do not realize it yet but its in their interest to not have a nuclear weapons program. We can't help but think of the bigger picture for Iranians. The citizenry, mostly young and educated, have a natural inclination and acceptance toward many aspects of Western culture and have the intellect to create a balance between that and their own. Being more integrated, these people will want a better life for themselves and the tide of this will eventually overcome all resistance. And the West and China, frankly, each want the business.
Given what we've just said about the Iranian people, we do not think they would actually launch or set off a nuclear weapon, however, Hezbollah would, and there's the rub. If the long-term goal is to have better relations and have Iran rejoin the international community then their ceasing of state-sponsored terrorism has to be part of the overall negotiations. Economic sanctions haven't stopped the Iranians from funding Hezbollah extremists who wouldn't have the moral intellect to understand why employing such a weapon is destructive beyond their comprehension.
And the 'resistance' we mentioned, inside Iran, is not going to go quietly meaning that hardline leaders do not want to capitulate to the West in any way on either support for Hezbollah (and Assad in Syria) and the nuclear question. Knowing this, its understandable that Prime Minister Netanyahu is condemning the agreement, but there has to be a first step of engagement that has to be diplomacy instead of a military first-engagement option.
A great agreement? Certainly not, but we would call it a good act of non-denominational faith.
Also part of the even larger picture for Iran, is why would they, being located on one of the most major active fault lines in the world, want a nuclear anything. Think about Fukushima [in Japan] and then think about an Iranian earthquake and a nuclear plant. Just saying.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
11.17.13: The Affordable Care Act Needs a Fixer
There is no doubt that the start for the Affordable Care Act has been a mess, mechanically and politically. Going into the interview with Nancy Pelosi, we were thinking that she would say the things to clarify what is going on that the President doesn't seem to be able to articulate. However, that was not the case at all on today "Meet The Press."
When you don't have a straight answer, the best way to go is to get technical, which is what we saw from Ms. Pelosi. She spoke about how people who had plans before the Affordable Care Act was enacted, back in 2010, wouldn't have their policies cancelled, grandfathered in, if you will. Most people aren't thinking back to 2010 when the law was passed and then signed by the president. They're thinking of a month ago when the exchanges were supposed to be up and going as the real start of the law. That's incorrect but that is the perception.
It brings to mind another point, that the worst premise of the Affordable Care Act is that it relies on the insurance companies to do the right thing, but in reality what they'll really do is examine the law to find loopholes and exploit those loopholes. Nancy Pelosi said that the insurance company needs to issue another letter following a cancellation letter explaining that the exchange offers more coverage for a lower rate. Why would the insurance companies have any interest in doing that? They would not send a letter saying basically that they charge too much and don't give you enough cover so when you go to the exchange please pick us again. It's not going to happen. Also, if we're going back to 2010 to the initial enactment of the law, why hadn't these letter gone out sooner? It's convenient timing for the insurance companies to deflect blame about inadequate insurance and simply point to 'Obamacare' and how seemingly awful it is.
And when the former House Speaker says that there is nothing in the law that says you'll keep your policy, as noted by Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, that doesn't help especially now that it is all we can remember President Obama saying about the law in the midst of a flood of soundbites.
Ms. Pelosi corrected noted that the state exchanges work very well, which is good news if you live in a state with a Democratic governor, that's just where we are politically. But maybe that makes Senator Kelly Ayotte's (R-NH) suggestion about being able to buy health insurance over states lines a good one. Give the 'red' states the opportunity to mitigate the ill-serving national healthcare site for one of the states' web sites that work. Otherwise, Ms. Ayotte's one and only concrete suggestion about what Republicans would offer is a stupid idea. If you live in New York and you buy an insurance plan in Alaska because its cheaper, you can pretty much guarantee that your doctor will be 'out of network.'
Other than that, Ms. Ayotte, very indicative of Republicans at large, had no alternative solutions to insure more Americans and curb costs. Doing a 'time out' on the Healthcare Law is not an alternative idea; that's a vote for nothing. The Republicans would be wise to offer a series of amendments, 'fixes,' to the law and this way, they can get some things they want out of it while politically looking like the compromising problem solvers. However, Republican political ranks are so fixated on ideological purity and opposition that they will not take that tact.
The bottom line is if the Affordable Care Act is going to work, the web site has to work. As Wall Street Journal editorial page deputy editor, Daniel Henninger, and the Washington Post's Ezra Klein agreed, with younger adults relying on and relating to connectivity, if the web site doesn't work, you will not have their support, they will not sign up, and then it's a complete disaster.
And we appreciate that Mr. Obama is willing to take responsibility for this disastrous role out, but it is very indicative of Chris Matthews' point that the Administration doesn't have a chain of command; not his cabinet but his White House Staff. Who in the Administration can the president assign to come on the Sunday programs and make the case? This only contributes to Mr. Obama's less than stellar performance and character poll numbers, which he could restore a bit if he were able to get a real 'fixer' in the administration. No one is filling that role.
And speaking of a fixer, the key is fixing the web site, because once the people who have had their plans cancelled see the better plans that are offered, then the outrage will subside. There will still be problems but they won't be for lack of communication.
We would also guess this an inappropriate time to ask about the possibility of an app.
*****
On this 50th Anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's assassination, the perspective offered by Tom Brokaw and Chris Matthews is important to note because it was a particular generations' before and after moment, just as 9.11 is for us now. One can not fully negotiate today's complexities without having the historical reference to put it in perspective, or so we'd like to think so.
Then the program went off the rails again with speculative discussion of presidential politics. This was the time to further examine the President's handling of other issues, but this is a current failing of "Meet The Press" right now as they go for the political gossip instead of furthering examining what is important at the moment. Viewers tune out because of this. Tom Brokaw mentioned Mr. Obama's handling of Syria, and how the Russians basically bailed him out. Why not explore that topic further. What about discussing jobs? But no, instead we have to hearing nothing new about Hilary Clinton's prospects if she decides to run for president. Mr. Brokaw also said that with three years to go before the election, we'll offer no answer here today. To which Kathleen Parker quipped, "well, we have to fill up the hour," which pretty much summed it up.
Roundtable: NBC Special Correspondent Tom Brokaw; Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker; Republican Strategist Mike Murphy; and host of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Chris Matthews.
When you don't have a straight answer, the best way to go is to get technical, which is what we saw from Ms. Pelosi. She spoke about how people who had plans before the Affordable Care Act was enacted, back in 2010, wouldn't have their policies cancelled, grandfathered in, if you will. Most people aren't thinking back to 2010 when the law was passed and then signed by the president. They're thinking of a month ago when the exchanges were supposed to be up and going as the real start of the law. That's incorrect but that is the perception.
It brings to mind another point, that the worst premise of the Affordable Care Act is that it relies on the insurance companies to do the right thing, but in reality what they'll really do is examine the law to find loopholes and exploit those loopholes. Nancy Pelosi said that the insurance company needs to issue another letter following a cancellation letter explaining that the exchange offers more coverage for a lower rate. Why would the insurance companies have any interest in doing that? They would not send a letter saying basically that they charge too much and don't give you enough cover so when you go to the exchange please pick us again. It's not going to happen. Also, if we're going back to 2010 to the initial enactment of the law, why hadn't these letter gone out sooner? It's convenient timing for the insurance companies to deflect blame about inadequate insurance and simply point to 'Obamacare' and how seemingly awful it is.
And when the former House Speaker says that there is nothing in the law that says you'll keep your policy, as noted by Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, that doesn't help especially now that it is all we can remember President Obama saying about the law in the midst of a flood of soundbites.
Ms. Pelosi corrected noted that the state exchanges work very well, which is good news if you live in a state with a Democratic governor, that's just where we are politically. But maybe that makes Senator Kelly Ayotte's (R-NH) suggestion about being able to buy health insurance over states lines a good one. Give the 'red' states the opportunity to mitigate the ill-serving national healthcare site for one of the states' web sites that work. Otherwise, Ms. Ayotte's one and only concrete suggestion about what Republicans would offer is a stupid idea. If you live in New York and you buy an insurance plan in Alaska because its cheaper, you can pretty much guarantee that your doctor will be 'out of network.'
Other than that, Ms. Ayotte, very indicative of Republicans at large, had no alternative solutions to insure more Americans and curb costs. Doing a 'time out' on the Healthcare Law is not an alternative idea; that's a vote for nothing. The Republicans would be wise to offer a series of amendments, 'fixes,' to the law and this way, they can get some things they want out of it while politically looking like the compromising problem solvers. However, Republican political ranks are so fixated on ideological purity and opposition that they will not take that tact.
The bottom line is if the Affordable Care Act is going to work, the web site has to work. As Wall Street Journal editorial page deputy editor, Daniel Henninger, and the Washington Post's Ezra Klein agreed, with younger adults relying on and relating to connectivity, if the web site doesn't work, you will not have their support, they will not sign up, and then it's a complete disaster.
And we appreciate that Mr. Obama is willing to take responsibility for this disastrous role out, but it is very indicative of Chris Matthews' point that the Administration doesn't have a chain of command; not his cabinet but his White House Staff. Who in the Administration can the president assign to come on the Sunday programs and make the case? This only contributes to Mr. Obama's less than stellar performance and character poll numbers, which he could restore a bit if he were able to get a real 'fixer' in the administration. No one is filling that role.
And speaking of a fixer, the key is fixing the web site, because once the people who have had their plans cancelled see the better plans that are offered, then the outrage will subside. There will still be problems but they won't be for lack of communication.
We would also guess this an inappropriate time to ask about the possibility of an app.
*****
On this 50th Anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's assassination, the perspective offered by Tom Brokaw and Chris Matthews is important to note because it was a particular generations' before and after moment, just as 9.11 is for us now. One can not fully negotiate today's complexities without having the historical reference to put it in perspective, or so we'd like to think so.
Then the program went off the rails again with speculative discussion of presidential politics. This was the time to further examine the President's handling of other issues, but this is a current failing of "Meet The Press" right now as they go for the political gossip instead of furthering examining what is important at the moment. Viewers tune out because of this. Tom Brokaw mentioned Mr. Obama's handling of Syria, and how the Russians basically bailed him out. Why not explore that topic further. What about discussing jobs? But no, instead we have to hearing nothing new about Hilary Clinton's prospects if she decides to run for president. Mr. Brokaw also said that with three years to go before the election, we'll offer no answer here today. To which Kathleen Parker quipped, "well, we have to fill up the hour," which pretty much summed it up.
Roundtable: NBC Special Correspondent Tom Brokaw; Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker; Republican Strategist Mike Murphy; and host of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Chris Matthews.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
11.10.13: Stay Firm At The Table with Iran/ Chris Christie
The United States Secretary of State, John Kerry, said in a prerecorded interview that he did not get the sense that the Iranians were playing games at the negotiating table. However, it apparently seems as though they were, with Mr. Gregory reporting before the interview that the Iran President Hassan Rouhani stated that, in fact, Iran would not stop enriching uranium. Should we be worried about Mr. Kerry's ability to read the room during negotiations?
It's a bit of a jab we will admit, not to be confused with a criticism, as Mr. Kerry has overall acted on and defended the Obama Administration's foreign policy effectively, doing what he can where he can, a solid fill-in for Mrs. Clinton, but we do have questions about some of the policy. He didn't have the knowledge of the Iranian statement, but that didn't render the interview an entire loss.
A criticism would be that the program is meeting the standard of its heritage right now and doesn't have the clout to get a live interview with the Secretary. We understand that there may have been scheduling problems; however, they should have had a more in-depth interview on multiple topics.
Basically, the deal is that there is no deal between Iran and the West. If Iran is not going to stop enriching, a decision by the way that Rouhani certainly does not make, then the sanctions will remain in place. As Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) noted, meetings about reviewing sanctions have been cancelled. There's the question of whether the sanctions should be ramped up even more, in light of the Iranians' decision, but if you have them at the table, punitive at this moment is not the way to go. We agree, in sentiment but not in tone, with the Tennessee Senator that the Administration should not deal away its leverage. Right now, you stay at the table, but stay Gibraltar firm. Mr. Corker referred to North Korea diplomacy where the Bush Administration got burned in an attempt to increase normalization of relations. It looked bad politically but you have to at least make an attempt, however with that said, the Obama Administration should heed that lesson amongst their attempts to increase overall communication.
We've been hard on President Obama lately with regard to his foreign policy because we see it as a blown opportunity entirely if he achieves no dramatic effect. On domestic policy, there is no confidence in Congress and the Administration to collaborate on anything, obviously, so where the Administration can more effectively chart its own course. Success is fleeting more quickly for Mr. Obama on this front because of daily N.S.A. revelations causing the slow death of credibility by a thousand cuts.
Secretary Kerry did say that 'no deal is better than a bad deal,' which echoes previous statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu... purposefully and prudently. He contested Mr. Gregory's question about broader criticism on the Administration not exercising power in the region. But that's not what we're referring to. Exercising power for the sake of it is short term thinking. We're talking about influence and the long term.
[Note: The format for the program has been all over the place lately so we're reserving the right to not include a comment about every aspect of the program. To this point, it seems as though the producers have lost a little confidence in their moderator using special reports (Harry Smith), book promotions (Joe Scarborough), and various news segments with Chuck Todd to fill up time. Case in point is Mr. Gregory focusing on Mr. Kerry's Kennedy comment more than focusing on his answers about Iran. And why not ask about Syria? We were almost going to fire missiles into this country, as the Secretary noted. It feels like "Meet The Press" loses its concentration from week to week.]
On Governor Chris Christie...
There is no doubt that the citizens of New Jersey like the way Mr. Christie (R-NJ) runs the state. It would seem that Mr. Christie is a moderate conservative because fiscally he is very much a Republican and on social issues, he's liberal. However, that is not entirely accurate. Mr. Christie is conservative on social issues, but a Democratic state congress is responsible for that perception because they push a more tolerant, open social policy that overrides a veto. This dynamic creates a political center with which most Americans are comfortable. Mr. Christie doesn't share the attitude of an extreme ideologues in his party that the opposition party is not to be collaborated with or that it's the 'enemy.' Mr. Christie's success is the result of his pragmatism, unlike Mark Halperin's asinine gushing saying that Mr. Christie is 'magical.' The fiscal conservative/ social liberal (what most Americans want) is the result of a dynamic that consists of a Democratic congress and a Republican as the executive. As Ms. Kearns-Goodwin noted, American politics today consists of simply rooting for the other side to fail. But if the other side fails, it's common knowledge that we all fail... or is it?
Presidential Historian and author of the new book “The Bully Pulpit,” Doris Kearns Goodwin; Congresswoman Donna Edwards (D-MD); co-author of the new book “Double Down,” Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin; and host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” and author of the new book “The Right Path,” Joe Scarborough.
It's a bit of a jab we will admit, not to be confused with a criticism, as Mr. Kerry has overall acted on and defended the Obama Administration's foreign policy effectively, doing what he can where he can, a solid fill-in for Mrs. Clinton, but we do have questions about some of the policy. He didn't have the knowledge of the Iranian statement, but that didn't render the interview an entire loss.
A criticism would be that the program is meeting the standard of its heritage right now and doesn't have the clout to get a live interview with the Secretary. We understand that there may have been scheduling problems; however, they should have had a more in-depth interview on multiple topics.
Basically, the deal is that there is no deal between Iran and the West. If Iran is not going to stop enriching, a decision by the way that Rouhani certainly does not make, then the sanctions will remain in place. As Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) noted, meetings about reviewing sanctions have been cancelled. There's the question of whether the sanctions should be ramped up even more, in light of the Iranians' decision, but if you have them at the table, punitive at this moment is not the way to go. We agree, in sentiment but not in tone, with the Tennessee Senator that the Administration should not deal away its leverage. Right now, you stay at the table, but stay Gibraltar firm. Mr. Corker referred to North Korea diplomacy where the Bush Administration got burned in an attempt to increase normalization of relations. It looked bad politically but you have to at least make an attempt, however with that said, the Obama Administration should heed that lesson amongst their attempts to increase overall communication.
We've been hard on President Obama lately with regard to his foreign policy because we see it as a blown opportunity entirely if he achieves no dramatic effect. On domestic policy, there is no confidence in Congress and the Administration to collaborate on anything, obviously, so where the Administration can more effectively chart its own course. Success is fleeting more quickly for Mr. Obama on this front because of daily N.S.A. revelations causing the slow death of credibility by a thousand cuts.
Secretary Kerry did say that 'no deal is better than a bad deal,' which echoes previous statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu... purposefully and prudently. He contested Mr. Gregory's question about broader criticism on the Administration not exercising power in the region. But that's not what we're referring to. Exercising power for the sake of it is short term thinking. We're talking about influence and the long term.
[Note: The format for the program has been all over the place lately so we're reserving the right to not include a comment about every aspect of the program. To this point, it seems as though the producers have lost a little confidence in their moderator using special reports (Harry Smith), book promotions (Joe Scarborough), and various news segments with Chuck Todd to fill up time. Case in point is Mr. Gregory focusing on Mr. Kerry's Kennedy comment more than focusing on his answers about Iran. And why not ask about Syria? We were almost going to fire missiles into this country, as the Secretary noted. It feels like "Meet The Press" loses its concentration from week to week.]
On Governor Chris Christie...
There is no doubt that the citizens of New Jersey like the way Mr. Christie (R-NJ) runs the state. It would seem that Mr. Christie is a moderate conservative because fiscally he is very much a Republican and on social issues, he's liberal. However, that is not entirely accurate. Mr. Christie is conservative on social issues, but a Democratic state congress is responsible for that perception because they push a more tolerant, open social policy that overrides a veto. This dynamic creates a political center with which most Americans are comfortable. Mr. Christie doesn't share the attitude of an extreme ideologues in his party that the opposition party is not to be collaborated with or that it's the 'enemy.' Mr. Christie's success is the result of his pragmatism, unlike Mark Halperin's asinine gushing saying that Mr. Christie is 'magical.' The fiscal conservative/ social liberal (what most Americans want) is the result of a dynamic that consists of a Democratic congress and a Republican as the executive. As Ms. Kearns-Goodwin noted, American politics today consists of simply rooting for the other side to fail. But if the other side fails, it's common knowledge that we all fail... or is it?
Presidential Historian and author of the new book “The Bully Pulpit,” Doris Kearns Goodwin; Congresswoman Donna Edwards (D-MD); co-author of the new book “Double Down,” Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin; and host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” and author of the new book “The Right Path,” Joe Scarborough.
Sunday, November 03, 2013
11.3.13: The Mitt Romney Interview
The former governor of Massachusetts and Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, had some harsh words for President Obama today, with a sort of 'I told you so' temperment to his answers, which in some cases was justified. It was a quality that Mr. Romney was taking comfort in during his talk with Mr. Gregory on today's "Meet The Press." He repeated that the president had been dishonest all along in his promises about the Affordable Healthcare Act in that people who already have insurance will not have their policy affected by the new law in anyway. That is turning out to not be the case because what the law demands is that there is a baseline of what must be covered, and in many cases, the policies that people already have do not cover those minimum requirements. The consequence is that people's policies are being cancelled and they have to buy a new policy that meets those requirements.
However, another quality that came through during the interview is that Mr. Romney, while correctly pointing out a negative effect of the Obamacare law, is that Mr. Romney would have not been the right choice to be the President of the United States. Nevermind that Mr. Romney can not rise above the pettiness in his attempt to discredit Mr. Obama's entire second term as illegitimate because of this 'dishonesty' (a sure sign he is still bitter about the lose), but more telling is that he has never once touted the accomplishment of what he did as Governor of Massachusetts, getting 97% of the state's population insured.
Instead, he only stated that the president had failed to learn the [harmful] lessons of the Massachusetts healthcare law, yet never explained what those were. One of those lessons could be that the law actually worked, and as he had previously said that it could be a model for the country as the current Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick (D-MA) said later in the program.
What we're trying to reconcile from the interview is something in particular that Mr. Romney said. He explained that there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach that can work in the U.S., and that each state has to come up with a system that best works for them. However, he went on to explain that if he had been elected president, he would have left it to the states but with the requirement that they had to find a way to insure all their citizens and not reject someone based on a preexisting condition. By saying that, he's put a bottom line federal mandate in place for the states to follow. What seemed lie a reasonable state is essentially rendered baseless because it runs directly counter to what his party, the Republican party, believes in. As we said many times before, simply letting the states individually figure what to do with healthcare is not a plan, and is not the answer. In the "Meet The Press" clip from 2007, Mr. Romney says in it that he thought the Massachusetts model - the individual mandate model (same as the ACA) - was the best one for the country.
[As an aside, we detest the whole political rhetorical game of repeatedly calling someone dishonest while at the same time refusing to say the person lied. It's a semantic game that no politician wants to get trapped in, but it's also a clear illustration of not having any political backbone and no genuine leadership quality. If you state that the president 'destroyed the foundation of truth' or that there is a 'fundamental dishonesty' with the American people, then just say he lied. Those are very strong disparaging remarks, 'charges' if you will, which also speak to a person's character. Mr. Obama hammered on Mr. Bush's political record, but neither man has ever said anything negative about each other personal character. It's worth considering.]
With all that said, we're not absolving the Obama Administration of fault. There are too many 'should-have-knowns' about the healthcare law. For example, touching on something Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodard said about any big piece of legislation, which was 'follow the money,' the Administration should have had a better idea of how the insurance companies would exploit loopholes in the law to charge people more money. In this case, covering mental illness treatment is a minimum requirement so instead of adding to people's policies and doing the due diligence to review individual cases as to weather there is a history that would dictate an increase in monthly costs or not, the insurance companies in a blanketed way cancel policies and require people to buy a new one. It's not the 'right' thing to do, that we all know. We also all know that the insurance companies probably won't do the 'right' thing. The Obama Administration should have known this.
Another quick example that would run counter to what Governor Patrick said, which was that the Healthcare web site was a 'convenience.' We disagree completely, the web site is essential. It's the face of the entire program and the biggest driver of its success. If you want the young and healthy to sign up, then you have to make the main method of this generation's communication, work well. Period. The Obama Administration should have known.
Editor of the Weekly Standard Bill Kristol said that the president's signature piece of legislation - Obamacare - is failing and that it will fail while also looking forward to the day that he returns to "Meet The Press" to say 'I told you so.' Despite the most probably truth of David Axelrod's rebuttal that Mr. Kristol speaks like a man who has already had good health insurance, that's not why we disagree with his statement. We disagree with him because he roots for failure. Remember when in Abu Ghraib United States soldiers humiliated, abused, and tortured prisoners? People blamed the Bush Administration, but that was a failure on all America. When the president's administration fails, that means that the law failed which translates to Congress failing as well. And that means we all have. Why ever be on the side of that.
Roundtable: former Senior Adviser to the president when health care reform became law, David Axelrod; Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodard; editor of the Weekly Standard Bill Kristol; and anchor of BBC World News America, Katty Kay.
Postscript: Why the United States has 5% percent of the world's population, but 25% of the world's prison population is because this country has instilled a profit motivation to the prison system. When private companies own the prisons and are driven by increasing profits for shareholders, the number of individuals incarcerated will only increase. More prisoners means more profit - follow the money.
However, another quality that came through during the interview is that Mr. Romney, while correctly pointing out a negative effect of the Obamacare law, is that Mr. Romney would have not been the right choice to be the President of the United States. Nevermind that Mr. Romney can not rise above the pettiness in his attempt to discredit Mr. Obama's entire second term as illegitimate because of this 'dishonesty' (a sure sign he is still bitter about the lose), but more telling is that he has never once touted the accomplishment of what he did as Governor of Massachusetts, getting 97% of the state's population insured.
Instead, he only stated that the president had failed to learn the [harmful] lessons of the Massachusetts healthcare law, yet never explained what those were. One of those lessons could be that the law actually worked, and as he had previously said that it could be a model for the country as the current Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick (D-MA) said later in the program.
What we're trying to reconcile from the interview is something in particular that Mr. Romney said. He explained that there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach that can work in the U.S., and that each state has to come up with a system that best works for them. However, he went on to explain that if he had been elected president, he would have left it to the states but with the requirement that they had to find a way to insure all their citizens and not reject someone based on a preexisting condition. By saying that, he's put a bottom line federal mandate in place for the states to follow. What seemed lie a reasonable state is essentially rendered baseless because it runs directly counter to what his party, the Republican party, believes in. As we said many times before, simply letting the states individually figure what to do with healthcare is not a plan, and is not the answer. In the "Meet The Press" clip from 2007, Mr. Romney says in it that he thought the Massachusetts model - the individual mandate model (same as the ACA) - was the best one for the country.
[As an aside, we detest the whole political rhetorical game of repeatedly calling someone dishonest while at the same time refusing to say the person lied. It's a semantic game that no politician wants to get trapped in, but it's also a clear illustration of not having any political backbone and no genuine leadership quality. If you state that the president 'destroyed the foundation of truth' or that there is a 'fundamental dishonesty' with the American people, then just say he lied. Those are very strong disparaging remarks, 'charges' if you will, which also speak to a person's character. Mr. Obama hammered on Mr. Bush's political record, but neither man has ever said anything negative about each other personal character. It's worth considering.]
With all that said, we're not absolving the Obama Administration of fault. There are too many 'should-have-knowns' about the healthcare law. For example, touching on something Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodard said about any big piece of legislation, which was 'follow the money,' the Administration should have had a better idea of how the insurance companies would exploit loopholes in the law to charge people more money. In this case, covering mental illness treatment is a minimum requirement so instead of adding to people's policies and doing the due diligence to review individual cases as to weather there is a history that would dictate an increase in monthly costs or not, the insurance companies in a blanketed way cancel policies and require people to buy a new one. It's not the 'right' thing to do, that we all know. We also all know that the insurance companies probably won't do the 'right' thing. The Obama Administration should have known this.
Another quick example that would run counter to what Governor Patrick said, which was that the Healthcare web site was a 'convenience.' We disagree completely, the web site is essential. It's the face of the entire program and the biggest driver of its success. If you want the young and healthy to sign up, then you have to make the main method of this generation's communication, work well. Period. The Obama Administration should have known.
Editor of the Weekly Standard Bill Kristol said that the president's signature piece of legislation - Obamacare - is failing and that it will fail while also looking forward to the day that he returns to "Meet The Press" to say 'I told you so.' Despite the most probably truth of David Axelrod's rebuttal that Mr. Kristol speaks like a man who has already had good health insurance, that's not why we disagree with his statement. We disagree with him because he roots for failure. Remember when in Abu Ghraib United States soldiers humiliated, abused, and tortured prisoners? People blamed the Bush Administration, but that was a failure on all America. When the president's administration fails, that means that the law failed which translates to Congress failing as well. And that means we all have. Why ever be on the side of that.
Roundtable: former Senior Adviser to the president when health care reform became law, David Axelrod; Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodard; editor of the Weekly Standard Bill Kristol; and anchor of BBC World News America, Katty Kay.
Postscript: Why the United States has 5% percent of the world's population, but 25% of the world's prison population is because this country has instilled a profit motivation to the prison system. When private companies own the prisons and are driven by increasing profits for shareholders, the number of individuals incarcerated will only increase. More prisoners means more profit - follow the money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)