A Progressive State of the Union

President Obama is giving his sixth state of the union Tuesday. Things haven't quite worked out as hoped for our President. Partly his fault, partly that of a resurgent and extremist right-wing. We are where we are so there's no sense thinking of what might have been. Nevertheles, here is the State of the Union you won't be hearing tomorrow night.

First let's talk about the situation here at home.

Let's get one thing straight at the outset - the problem is not the deficit. It never has been and never will be. The problem is the lack of jobs. The problem is an overbloated military budget and our overseas misadventures. The problem is a tax structure that taxes incomes of the wealthiest at one of the lowest rates in the developed world. The problem is the impact of money on elections and the influence of lobbyists on legislation to serve their interests and not those of the nation. The problem is that in this, the wealthiest nation on earth, we have 46 million living below the poverty line, 49 million living in food insecure households, and nearly 50 million without health insurance.

The recession continues for many. An under-funded stimulus in 2009 and continued Congressional inaction on a jobs bill over the past five years have brought us to this point. Yes, the official unemployment rate is "down" to 6.7%. But we all know that when you add in underemployed part-time workers and those discouraged from looking for any job, the number is much higher. It's 13.1%. Therefore I am immediately sending to Congress for their action a jobs and training bill designed to remedy this sorry state of affairs. Infrastructure improvements - roads, bridges, tunnels, schools - will be a high priority. Assistance to city and state governments to hire teachers, police, and firefighters will also be provided. Jobs in the environmental sector to combat the coming effects of global warming - both in alternative energy industries and in developing engineering solutions to the problems that will face low-lying areas of our country. In addition, we are investing in a massive program of medical research to eliminate cancer in our lifetime. 

I am asking Congress to restore long-term unemployment benefits until this jobs, training and research program has its desired effect - an official unemployment rate no greater than 3%.   I am asking for a hike in the Federal minimum wage to $9.25 per hour to be automatically adjusted annually according to the rate of inflation. This will get us back to an equivalent minimum wage as we had in 1968. Also, I am signing an executive order tonight that will require government contracts to be awarded only to contractors who pay a living wage - $14.75/hour. This will allow a wage earner to support a four member household at 125% of the poverty line. I don't think anyone working a full-time job should live in poverty in this country. Finally I will veto any spending bill that comes to my desk that contains provisions for cuts in food stamps. To do so at this time while maintaining massive subsidies for agribusinesses is obscene.

And here's a message for the Republican-controlled House of Representatives - do something that actually helps the country recover from this recession. Vote against the Affordable Care Act all you like if it makes you feel good. As you and the rest of the country know, I will veto any such bill that makes it to my desk. But do something useful in the meantime. The above would be a modest start. Another item requiring your immediate attention is the immigration reform bill passed by the Senate back in June. If you can't think of anything better, just pass the bill from the Senate. It's not perfect but it is a start.

Our democracy is under attack. These attacks are not from any external threats but from the influence of money on elections and legislation and from the well-funded and organized attack on the right to vote. There is no greater, more distinguishing right in a democracy than the right to vote. I have therefore ordered the attorney general to contest voter id laws passed since 2010. We all know why these laws were passed - they are an attempt to disenfranchise minority, older, younger, and poorer voters. It is an assault against our democracy to deny up to 5 million citizens their right to vote. And don't give us any nonsense about voter fraud. That's about as common as shark attacks and you know it. We will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law any state or group to unfairly deny or threaten to deny any citizen his or her right to vote. In addition, I have requested that the Department of Health and Human Services fully comply with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which requires federal agencies providing public assistance to help voters get registered. Finally, we will introduce and work tirelessly for an amendment to the Constitution that will provide for public financing of all Federal elections and which will open the way for states to do the same. No longer will the money and interests of a few determine the direction our nation takes.

Under no circumstances will I allow the Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare programs to be threatened in a phony deficit crisis. These programs need to be strengthened not weakened. If any spending is to be cut, it will come from the military budget, which is vastly in excess of any rational needs for our defense. Effective immediately, I am ordering the dismantling of our nuclear arsenal and ask other nations possessing these weapons to do the same. All troops remaining in Afghanistan will be withdrawn as soon as safely practicable and we are immediately stopping all combat operations in that nation. In addition, I have requested the heads of the military branches to prepare base budgets for the coming two fiscal years that are, respectively, 25% and 50% below the current year's funding.

Our foreign policy will solely be one of humanitarian assistance. We seek no empire and respect the right of self-determination of the peoples of the world. The savings from the reduced military budget will be put to good use in an effort to eradicate disease and hunger world-wide.

We will no longer be arms dealers to the world and request that other nations do the same. We are stopping all military assistance programs. Arms merchants are being put on notice that providing arms for foreign conflicts will be treated as criminal behavior.

Other foreign policy objectives for 2014 are:

• a just and peaceful solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict - one that is consistent with international law and provides Palestinians with a viable homeland and Israel with peace
• an end to the Syrian Civil War
• an Iranian nuclear program monitored to ensure that it is for peaceful purposes and allowed as is their right as signatories to the Nuclear Non-Prolifertation Treaty
• an end to ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Africa brought about by using our financial might to address the root causes of these conflicts
  
  

We will do all in our power to bring about these objectives in a peaceful manner consistent with the universal rights of man declared 65 years ago by the United Nations and the four freedoms of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

Links

Calculation of the real unemployment rate

Five facts about our military budget

Sunday Round-Up - January 26, 2014

This is the weekly selection of news and opinion from sources outside the US mainstream media.  Today we look at the Congressional threat to the Iran nuclear deal.  We also look at, in brief, the Geneva II peace talks, the Affordable Care Act's lost voter registration opportunity, the impending age of robots and Ferrari's new Formula 1 design.

Iran Nuclear Deal
In a January 21st Op-Ed at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace website, CEIP President Jessica Tuchman Mathews writes that after a decade long impasse on Iran's nuclear program, world powers and Iran are on the verge of a solution.  "Yet the US Congress, acting reflexively against Iran, and under intense pressure from Israel, seems ready to shatter the agreement with a bill that takes no account of Iranian political developments, misunderstands proliferation realities, and ignores the dire national security consequences for the United States."  Mathews notes that the US's unilateral sanctions did nothing to stop Iran's uranium enrichment since the sanctions had little support in the international community.  Other world powers looked at the sanctions as an attempt to stop Iran from enriching nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes as was its right as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  The situation changed in 2009 when President Obama stated that he was willing to engage in a serious dialogue to allay growing concerns over Iran's nuclear enrichment.  The sanctions gained  international community support and seriously impacted Iran's economy.  "No outsider can say for certain that Iran ever definitively chose to become a nuclear weapons state. On the one hand, it has spent billions of dollars pursuing activities that can be rationally explained only if the regime seeks the ability to produce weapons....Yet Tehran has also said that it does not want nuclear weapons. It has argued that nuclear weapons would not be appropriate for an effective military strategy and that they would violate the principles of the Islamic Republic."

One thing that is clear is that "Iran has been unambiguous in insisting on its right to uranium enrichment...Those like [Israeli] Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who insist that the only acceptable level is zero enrichment in Iran know, or should know, that they are using code for 'no deal would be acceptable.' "  Attacks on Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities would delay but not stop its program and it would cause the international consensus on sanctions to collapse.  "Countries like Russia, China, Turkey, India, and Japan that have adopted the oil and financial sanctions against Iran with varying degrees of reluctance are unlikely to sustain them to support a war against enrichment"  Such illegitimate attacks would also strengthen the hand of Iranian hard-liners, make it impossible to have inspections, and, if Iran then chose to actually develop nuclear weapons, cause another round of proliferation in an already unstable region. 

As to the terms of the nuclear deal, "Iran agreed to eliminate its existing stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium either by diluting it down to low enrichment or converting it to an oxide form that is not adaptable for further enrichment,...[to stop] the operation or the installation of additional advanced centrifuges,...halt progress on the [plutonium] reactor under construction at Arak", and limit its stock of low-enriched uranium.  Finally "To reduce the possibility that Iran could be running covert, hidden fuel cycles, it extends monitoring for the first time to uranium mines and mills and to centrifuge production and assembly facilities. These inspections are unprecedented in both frequency and extent."  In return Iran has $7 billion in sanctions lifted.

All this is now in jeopardy if the new Iran sanctions bill is approved by congress - the Senate is eight or nine votes shy of  a veto-proof bill.  "Its passage, as an act of bad faith on the US’s part after having just agreed not to impose new sanctions during the term of the six-month deal, would probably cause Iran to walk away from the negotiations." Mathews concludes: "A final agreement is by no means assured, but the opportunity is assuredly here. The price of an agreement will be accepting a thoroughly monitored, appropriately sized enrichment program in Iran that does not rise over 5 percent. The alternatives are war or a nuclear-armed Iran. Should this be a hard choice? Astonishingly, too many members of Congress seem to think so."
(Mathews article was originally published in The New York Review of Books.)

Let's hope that Harry Reid can keep the bill from reaching the Senate floor and that no other Senators  sign on to this ill-thought-out and dangerous piece of legislation.

In Brief (Links)
[Mother Jones, January 23] Is the HHS running from a voter registration fight with Republicans?  The health insurance exchanges set up under Obamacare, as agencies providing public assistance, are required by federal law to help millions of uninsured Americans register to vote. But the Obama administration is refusing to fully comply with that law.

[La Repubblica. January 24]   "F14-T will be the new Maranello red."  The new Formula 1 race car from Ferrari will try to win the 2014 F1 World Cup.  The car was named after an online vote of Ferrari fans worldwide.  [Official photos]

 

[Mother Jones, January 23] Unlimited incomes in a world run by artificial intelligences?  These speculative ideas appear in a working paper by, believe it or not, the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank.  Kevin Drum, commenting on a James Pethokoukis post, writes that the general idea that robots and AI are...going to have a huge economic impact in the medium term future...is something that seems so obvious to me that I'm a little puzzled that there's anyone left who still doesn't see it."  [Pethokoukis' post is even more mind-boggling in its discussion of the AI singularity.]

With 130,000 dead and 9.5 million displaced, the Syrian Civil War is approaching the end of its third year.  Amidst low expectations, the Geneva II Conference got underway this past Wednesday.  The first face-to-face meetings between the opposing parties were held Saturday with only UN mediator Lakhdar Brahimi speaking and no agreements made.  [The Guardian, January 25] Al Jazeera has a number of articles and opinion pieces about the conference: Randa Slim in a January 23 op-ed notes that first peace initiatives rarely produce agreements to end conflict and Syria is not likely to be an exception.  She points to two successful conferences as models - the "Dayton accords which in the 1990s brought an end to the civil war in Bosnia...and the Bonn 2001 Conference in which the international community enabled an interim government to come to power in Afghanistan after the collapse of the Taliban regime."  Rami Khouri explains in another op-ed post why Iran's presence in Geneva II is critical for any progress.

Sunday Round-Up January 19, 2014

This is the weekly selection of news and opinion from sources outside the US mainstream media.  Today we look at Syria, Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

Syria


Peace talks to end the Syrian civil war are (hopefully) about to get underway in Geneva on January 22.  The UN, US and Russia have been trying to bring both sides to the table for months.  "The Syrian government announced on 27 November that it would participate in the talks, but added that its official delegation would not be going 'to hand over power to anyone'...The National Coalition [the coalition of rebel groups fighting the Assad government] is split over whether to attend, and is due to vote on the issue.  The opposition alliance long resisted calls to commit, but after intense pressure from its Western and Arab backers it voted on 11 November to participate if a number of conditions were met."  Whether anything will be accomplished is anybody's guess.  The two sides appear to have "irreconcilable objectives: Syria has repeatedly said President Assad's departure is out of the question, while the National Coalition has made it clear that President Assad must have no role in the transitional governing body called for in the Geneva Communique." [BBC News, January 17]

In a January 17 article, James Robbins, Diplomatic Correspondent for BBC News, examines how peaceful protests in March 2011 erupted into this all out civil war that has been going on for nearly 3 years and has left more than 100,000 people dead and has made 2.5 million people flee their homes.  The two side are intractably deadlocked with neither side strong enough to win nor weak enough to lose.  What many on the rebels side thought would be over in months has now stretched into years.  "Fighting between jihadists and more moderate opposition forces have added another layer to the conflict....Former US ambassador Ryan Crocker is among those urging the West to reconsider the unthinkable - a future Syria still controlled by President Assad.  He believes the alternative is that an al-Qaeda affiliate could seize power in Damascus. 'We rather blithely took the position that Assad must go,' he told [James Robbins].  'But if he goes because the radical Sunni opposition pushes him out we face the prospect of a country in the hands of al-Qaeda.  As bad as Assad is, I think from a Western perspective that is far, far worse.' "

(Image is by Reuters)

Iran

World powers and Iran are "likely to start talks on a final settlement to the long dispute over its nuclear ambitions in February, shortly after a six-month deal curbing its atomic activity takes effect, a diplomatic source said on Monday...Iran and the six powers said ... the deal would go into effect on January 20, pending verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Tehran is meeting its end of the bargain.  The preliminary accord appeared to arrest a drift towards regional war ..." [Reuters, January 13]

Meanwhile nuclear talks between Iran and International Atomic Energy Agency have been postponed to February 8.  "The UN nuclear watchdog has said a planned meeting with Iran next week to discuss how to allay concerns over its nuclear programme had been postponed to 8 February, without giving a reason.  The talks between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are separate from – though still closely linked with – broader diplomacy between Tehran and six world powers over Iran's disputed nuclear activity....The IAEA already regularly inspects Iranian nuclear sites to make sure there is no diversion of sensitive material for military purposes.  It will increase the frequency of such visits and see some additional facilities, including plants where Iran manufactures equipment for refining uranium. Enriched uranium can have both civilian and military purposes." [The Guardian, January 14]

Israel-Palestine

Reuters reported on Thursday of the hardening settlement demands of Benjamin Netanyahu and on his trip to Jordan. "Israel's prime minister has increased the amount of occupied territory he wants to keep after any peace deal with the Palestinians, Israeli radio reported on Thursday, a move that could complicate U.S.-backed efforts to reach an accord.  Benjamin Netanyahu's spokesman declined to comment on the report that he had added a bloc of Israeli-settled land near the Palestinian governmental seat in the occupied West Bank to a list of enclaves Israel intends to retain.That would leave 13 percent of the West Bank in Israeli hands, Israel's Army Radio said, a prospect likely to dismay Palestinians who want the area for a future state."  An unidentified Palestinian official, while rejecting the notion of Israel keeping large clusters of settlements is quoted as saying "once we agree on the withdrawal to 1967 borders, we can accept minor exchanges of land on a case-by-case basis."  Jordan has had a peace treaty with Israel since 1994.  Netanyahu visited King Abdullah in Amman and an Israeli statement said "Netanyahu 'emphasized that Israel places a premium on security arrangements, including Jordan's interest in any future agreement' with the Palestinians."


Haaretz expanded on Netanyahu's discussions in Jordan.  This was at least the fourth such trip since the negotiations restarted last year.  "The Americans and Palestinians have updated the Jordanians on the negotiations at every step of the way, prompting some disagreement when it comes to Jordan's stake in the core issues....Among the issues pertaining to Jordan are the western border of the Jordan Valley, the status of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees and water supplies."  Haaretz has learned "that the Americans have suggested the force placed in the Jordan Valley contain Palestinian and Israeli soldiers or police along with American or international boots on the ground."

State Of Obamacare

I've been fortunate . I've been covered by health insurance since the day I was born. To me it seems natural and more necessary than almost any other type of insurance. Why anyone would want to deny this to their fellows is beyond my comprehension. Health care is a right, not a privilege. And don't say that we, the richest nation on the planet, can't afford it. With some adjustments to the military budget and the tax laws, we could have universal health care as does every other advanced industrial nation.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was a step in the right direction. At the time it was signed into law, nearly 50 million Americans were uninsured - many or most because they could not afford it. Single payer or some public-private mix to get truly universal coverage would have clearly been better. But the ACA is perhaps the most we could have hoped for in light of the rabid opposition to the expansion of access to medical insurance.

It's been a hard road so far. Opponents have successfully hampered its implementation (25 Republican-controlled states decided not to expand Medicaid). The startup of the government website was beset with problems. The confusion over health insurance plans that did not meet the new standards was stunning and people were ill informed to deal with the "we're cancelling your insurance" notices sent out by insurance companies.

And it is not going to get any easier. Massive amounts of money are being spent to defeat vulnerable Democrats who supported the ACA in the upcoming 2014 elections. Since September, just one group, the conservative Americans for Prosperity, has spent $20 million on anti-ACA-supporter TV ads. [NY Times, Jan. 15] There are ongoing ad campaigns aimed at convincing younger, healthier Americans not to sign up. Should they be convinced by this onslaught of negativity, premiums will necessarily go up and the rabid opponents of the ACA, who poured millions into these campaigns will say "I told you so."

Here then are some thoughts on the Affordable Care Act at the start of its first fully operational year.

The healthcare.gov rollout was inexcusably botched... The single most important piece of legislation enacted during Obama's first five years relied on a website whose development appears to have been rushed and that lacked adequate pre-startup testing. This one is on Obama and his staff. All IT projects run into problems and, as red state after red state declared their intentions not to set up state health care exchanges, the writing was on the wall. This website would be overwhelmed. Progressives should be angry with Obama for this lack of oversight. The Affordable Care Act is an acid test of the most distinguishing feature between the political philosophies of the two main political parties: Does government have a role in improving the lives of its ordinary citizens? As the title of the History Channel presentation on the NASA space program says "Failure is not an option." The botched rollout was more than what any red blooded Tea Partier or supporter of the corporate oligarchy and the 1% could have hoped for.

...but things are looking up for the healthcare.gov website. After 400 fixes, the downtime was less than 5% by the end of November and it is even better now. "Ping time" (the round-trip delay time for a computer signal) is down to 15- 50 milliseconds. The site can now handle an estimated 800,000 visits per day.

After the fixes, enrollments surged. The LA Times reported on January 13: "More than 2.1 million Americans signed up for health insurance in the last three months of 2013 through new online marketplaces created by President Obama’s health law, as a December surge in enrollment helped the initiative recover from its disastrous launch." Don't forget that one of those last three months was October which saw very few enrollments. So it appears that ACA is enrolling new customers at a rate of about 1 million per month. And there are 3 million more who "have not yet selected a plan but have filled out applications for coverage on the new insurance marketplaces since Oct. 1 and have been deemed eligible for a plan." Finally, in October and November alone approximately 3.9 million people signed up for Medicaid.  If one of the prime purposes of expanding health insurance coverage is to cover those who could not afford it, this surely has to count as a success.

Cancellation of existing policies provided another black eye for the rollout... I don't think the Administration had a clue as to the extent that insurance companies would choose to cancel policies that did not meet Affordable Care Act standards. Rather than enact the necessary provisions (e.g., coverage for prescriptions, hospitalizations and emergency room care), many insurers chose to cancel the policies.  What could have been done to prevent this from bollixing up the works at the eleventh hour as people went to a malfunctioning website after being told they would no longer have health insurance after the end of the year? Several things come to mind: grandfather policies from say January 1, 2013; a notification period of no less than 6 months that your policy was being cancelled; a clear explanation by the President as to what "if you are happy with your existing policy" actually meant (policies in effect as of March 2010 were "grandfathered") ; and, of course, a fully functioning website.

 

...but Obamacare success stories are getting some press.

The Daily Beast, Oct.23 - "The Obamacare Success Stories: From a retired business owner in Arkansas to a young freelance filmmaker in Hollywood, Eleanor Clift highlights a few of the people the media has found who are happy to have Obamacare."

The Daily Kos, Nov. 4 -"Obamacare 'rate shock' victim changes her mind, calls the law a 'blessing in disguise'

TPM,Nov.25 - looks at how "Kentucky Uninsured React To SecuringHealth Care Coverage Under Obamacare"

TheDaily Kos, Dec. 10 -"What Republicans don't want: Florida woman cries tears of joyafter getting $3.19 Obamacare policy"

The Hill, Dec. 29 - "Five states with ObamaCare success"

The most obvious, but surely not the last attempt to defund, repeal or sabotage the Affordable Care Act was the phony debt-ceiling crisis manufactured last year by Republicans. The government was shutdown by the extremists who control the Republican Party. Though it failed miserably, people have a short memory and Republicans' approval ratings are increasing. There's a well-funded campaign in the run-up to the 2014 elections aimed at defeating Democratic legislators who supported the ACA.

There are the advertisements urging young people to opt out. A Yahoo News November 11 headline of an article reporting the shenanigans at the University of Miami read "Anti-Obamacare group entices students with models and a boozy party." What's the reasoning here? As the Yahoo post explains "You see, in order for the health care law to function, lots of healthy, young people must sign up for the exchanges to subsidize older, sicker insurance seekers. So conservative groups are spending a lot of money to convince them not to sign up." Now this logic should outrage any fair-minded person. The absence of a healthier cohort in a health insurance plan raises the rates for everyone. Expect an all-out blitz on this front in the coming months.

Legal challenges may cripple the legislation yet.   It's not over yet in the courts as several legal challenges wend their way towards the Supreme Court.  As reported in the LA Times "The new suits take aim at the parts of the law that offer subsidies to those who are above the poverty level but still may struggle to pay for insurance." 

The most threatening of these lawsuits borders on nit-picking insanity - whether insurance obtained on the Federal health care exchange (as opposed to State exchanges) is eligible for subsidies.  Wording issues such as this one would usually be ironed out between the Administration and Congress.  But in today's hyper-partisan environment, no cooperation can be expected. If this law suit succeeds, then no state without its own exchange would be able to participate in the Federal subsidies. There are 36 states without their own exchanges. Such a ruling would effectively dismantle the Affordable Care Act in these states.

Now for the good news. On January 15, a Federal District Court judge ruled in favor of the Affordable Care Act.  Reuters reports that the judge "upheld subsidies at the heart of President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul, rejecting one of the main legal challenges to the policy by conservatives opposed to an expansion of the federal government. A ruling in favor of a lawsuit brought by individuals and businesses in Texas, Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee, West Virginia and Virginia would have crippled the implementation of the law by making health insurance unaffordable for many people.  In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington D.C. wrote that Congress clearly intended to make the subsidies available nationwide under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 'There is evidence throughout the statute of Congress's desire to ensure broad access to affordable health coverage,' the judge wrote." 

The respite might be temporary if the plaintiffs take the case to the Supreme Court. But for now, the greatest legal challenge has been overcome.  Stay tuned.  As a great philosopher once said, "It ain't over 'til it's over."

Other Links

Medicaid expansion is going forward in just half of the states.  If every state agreed, more than 20 million Americans could be insured in the next decade.  Here's a link to the Medicaid expansion webpage on the ObamaCare Facts website.  

 

Sunday Round Up - January 12, 2014

This is the weekly selection of news and opinion from sources outside the US mainstream media. Today we look at the US military-industrial complex, health care in emerging nations, and poverty in the US 50 years after President Lyndon Johnson declared a "war on poverty."


The National Security State
What we used to term the military-industrial complex has grown far beyond President Eisenhower's deepest concerns when he warned us against it in his farewell speech in 1961.  In a January 5 post, Tom Engelhardt re-imagines national security as a proselytizing  warrior religion.   As Engelhardt writes: "The expansion of Washington’s national security state -- let’s call it the NSS -- to gargantuan proportions has historically met little opposition....At a cost of nearly a trillion dollars a year, its main global enemy consists of thousands of lightly armed jihadis and wannabe jihadis scattered mainly across the backlands of the planet....No matter how you cut it, the NSS is a Ripley’s Believe It or Not of staggering numbers that, once you step outside its thought system, don’t add up.  The U.S. national defense budget is estimated to be larger than those of the next 13 countries combined -- that is, simply off-the-charts more expensive.  The U.S. Navy has 11 aircraft carrier strike groups when no other country has more than two....It is creating a jet fighter that will be the most expensive weapons system in history.  Its weapons makers controlled 78% of the global arms market in 2012.... After all, if the twenty-first century has taught us anything, it’s that the most expensive and over-equipped military on the planet can’t win a war.  Its two multi-trillion-dollar attempts since 9/11, in Iraq and Afghanistan, both against lightly armed minority insurgencies, proved disasters."  Calling the NSS a remarkable failure, he concludes that the national security state "has made other options ephemeral and more immediate dangers than terrorism to the health and well being of Americans seem, at best, secondary.  It has pumped fear into the American soul.  It is a religion of state power."



Health Care
As we struggle here in this country supporting our overblown military budget while looking for ways to cut the social safety net and deny access to affordable health insurance to the more vulnerable in our society, it's interesting to look at the approach to health care in developing countries.  James Akazili and Charlotte Soulary write in January's Le Monde Diplomatique that "In an unequal 21st-century world, access to healthcare is key to fighting poverty and ensuring social cohesion."  They describe the growing focus on  Universal Health Care in the developing world.  The World Health Organization, the UN General Assembly and the World Bank have come out in support of Universal Health Care (UHC). "Governments are taking action: China, Thailand, South Africa and Mexico are some of the first emerging economies scaling up public investment in health, and many low-income countries, especially in Africa, have introduced free healthcare policies as a first step towards universal coverage."  With the need for UHC generally acknowledged, the discussion now is focusing on finance mechanisms.  The authors warn against a one-size-fits-all approach in financing the health care system.  "According to the WHO, only eight low-income countries will be in a position to fully finance UHC from domestic resources in 2015. More long-term and predictable aid is vital, to help build effective public health systems and also to improve public financial management and taxation systems so that countries can become self-sufficient."



In another Le Monde Diplomatique article, Carina Vance writes of the prominent place that health care has in Ecuador's new (2008) constitution.  Article 32 of the Ecuadorian constitution states: “Health is a right guaranteed by the state and whose fulfillment is linked to the exercise of other rights, including the right to water, food, education, sport, work, social security, a healthy environment and everything that promotes well-being."  The result: "Ecuadorians are benefitting from an unprecedented redistribution of wealth. This historic effort has allowed public health to become a key factor in social justice. The increase in the number of hospitals and healthcare centres throughout the country has given millions of patients access to services from which they had been excluded, because of distance, poverty, discrimination or lack of information."


Poverty in America
Fifty years ago in his State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson declared an "unconditional war on poverty"  - a war, he said, the "richest nation on Earth can afford to win....We cannot afford to lose it."  A  Mother Jones post on January 8 looks back at the distance we've come in combatting poverty in the years since.   "Johnson's administration went on to design "Great Society" initiatives, including a permanent food stamp program, Medicare and Medicaid, Head Start, which provides early education to low-income kids, and increased funding to public schools....The war on poverty helped raise millions above the poverty line. During Johnson's years in office, the poverty rate dropped from 23 percent to 12 percent."  The article presents charts that show how the social safety net has reduced poverty, the steep decreases in elderly and child poverty, the lack of progress in preventing "deep poverty" (half the poverty line - i.e., those living on an income of less than $11,775 a year for a family of four), the number of Americans living on $2/day, the cost of living in various American cities, and the continuing racial disparity for the poorest 20%.  The authors (Erika Eichelberger, Jaeah Lee, and AJ Vicens) conclude "So have we won the war on poverty? If it means that the lives of millions of Americans in poverty have improved under the Great Society programs, yes. But by no means have we attained Johnson's goal of 'curing' poverty. The poverty rates of certain demographic groups remain stagnant and racial disparities are as wide as ever."

Football - International Style

Back in 2004, Franklin Foer's How Soccer Explains the World examined the soccer culture in various countries and the soccer culture's relationship to the era of globalization.  Soccer has been a globalized sport for decades with many of the greatest players playing in, primarily, European professional leagues.  The anecdotes Foer shares are fascinating but the title is hype.  The anecdotes certainly don't explain the world but they do provide memorable and colorful examples of his basic premise - that there's an innate tendency towards tribalism and local culture that resists globalization.  Foer, at one point, seems to imply that maybe the furthest we can go as a species is an enlightened nationalism, at least at this stage in our evolution.

International competitions such as the FIFA World Cup and the upcoming Winter Olympics give us all a chance to exhibit our national pride in a non-belligerent manner.   The Olympics of  ancient Greece were a period of peace. Whatever city-states were fighting at the time put down their weapons and made a truce so that the athletes could travel safely to the games.  Of course, there were no Winter Olympics back in sunny Greece.  There were far fewer events (track and field, boxing, wrestling, and chariot racing), and the Olympics were as much a religious event as an athletic competition.  After all, the Greek gods resided on Mt. Olympus.


The World Cup was the dream and brain-child of Frenchman Jules Rimet, who was "of the generation that had gone through World War I, a conflict that left a monument in every French town with a list of the young men who died in the trenches....For his part, Jules Rimet came home with a dream: that rather than sending their young to gun each other down with machine guns and stabbing each other with bayonets, nations might instead compete on the pitch. They could celebrate their pride and difference while also sharing a set of rules and what he considered to be the most universal language on the planet: soccer." [SI/CNN/The Far Post]

So exhibiting a bit of my national pride, I must point out that the American team has one of the toughest draws in the tournament.  Of the field of 32, only Australia, Ghana and Costa Rica appear to face a more difficult challenge.  If the US advances out of the group stage, it will be a tribute to how far soccer has come in this country.  Not only are the highly ranked sides from Portugal and Germany in the group, the fourth member is the well regarded Ghana team.  Ghana matches up well against the US - they eliminated the US in the 2010 World Cup.  Here's the final draw for the group stage:

(Image is from the FIFA website.)

Foer wrote How Soccer Explains the World in 2004.  For an up-to-date look at the world's soccer scene, I'd recommend the Roads and Kingdoms series "The Far Post".  Every two weeks until the World Cup, they are posting an article on the teams and culture of "the beautiful game".

Football - American-Style

It's been a hectic and exciting couple of weeks with all the college football bowl games and NFL playoff games playing on TV.  The college BCS Championship was decided Monday night in what's been called a "game for the ages" and the hype is now building towards Super Bowl XLVIII - the first outdoor, cold weather Super Bowl ever.  I like most sports but football is my favorite. The sheer number of possible offensive plays, defensive alignments, and outcomes appeal to the tactician in me; the game plans, to the strategist.  The athleticism, speed and strength of the players result in incredible and sometimes acrobatic plays.  It's truly a game of inches and seconds where execution is paramount and many games are decided in the closing ticks of the clock.  The relatively low number of  games played in a football season (12 in college; 16 in the pro's) assures that just about every game is meaningful in the quest for a championship.

What can you say about the NFL's "wild card weekend"?  Two of the four games were decided on the last play with no time remaining.  Saturday night the New Orleans Saints won at Philadelphia on a field goal, 26-24.  In one of the Sunday games, played with the thermometer hovering just above 0 degrees F. and with a wind chill diving towards -20, San Francisco defeated Green Bay 23-20 on a 33-yard field goal that cleared the uprights with zero time on the clock.  It's a game of inches...a Green Bay defender nearly blocked the kick, the ball barely making it through his outstretched arms. (Link to a video of the near-block)  A third NFL playoff game saw an amazing comeback by the Indianapolis Colts who rallied from 28 points down to defeat the Kansas City Chiefs by 1 point.

Future college national championships will be decided by a four-team playoff.   So, the national championship game Monday night brought the much-debated BCS era to an end.  And what an end it was!  The ACC's Florida State, dominant and undefeated in 13 games,  were double-digit favorites against the SEC's Auburn.  Auburn had made it to the championship game on the strength of a 106 yard return of a missed field goal by Alabama as time expired and a loss by the until-then undefeated Ohio State team.  The SEC had won nine BCS national championships, including the last seven, and most of "Football Nation" was rooting for Florida State.  (In the interest of full disclosure...I am a big SEC fan.) 

Auburn almost did it.  At one point in the first half they were up by 18 points.  But Florida State changed the momentum of the game late in the first half when they converted a fake punt and went on to score a touchdown.  Then there was the wild conclusion.  In less than 5 minutes at the end of the game, we saw three touchdowns and three lead changes.  Florida State, with a 100 yard kickoff return for touchdown and led by their Heisman Trophy winning quarterback, Jameis Winston, came away with the victory.  The Auburn Tigers had run out of miracles.

Sports are the one place that our ancient tribal tendencies are, most times at least, relatively harmless.  Fans of rival clubs can be notably antagonistic towards one another -  the shorter the distance between the club's home fields, the greater the antagonism.  So tribalism is a good analogy.  But in spite of this tribalism and fierce competitiveness, sports consistently delivers moments of grace, fairness and respect... moments where it is clear that the joy of playing the game and respect for the opponent are the driving force of the players' action.  It even has a name - "good sportsmanship"Who can ever forget the farewell tribute to Mariano Rivera in last year's baseball All-Star Game?

Sports also give us a chance to be passionate about something that, in the grand scheme of things, does not matter that much.  It gives a chance to escape, for a few hours at least, from our everyday concerns and responsibilities.  It provides us with the "circus" of the usually derogatory "bread and circuses".

There is no bigger circus in American sports than professional football's Super Bowl.  Complete with a blockbuster half-time show and specially created commercials, it draws a television audience of over 100 million people and creates a party atmosphere across the entire nation.  Never mind that often times the Super Bowl is a disappointing affair with a lop-sided score.  People are enjoying themselves.  And the game can have some amazing moments - here's a link to one website's collection of the ten greatest Super Bowl plays of all time.



Finally, international competitions, such as the Olympics and the World Cup, give us a chance to exhibit our nationalistic pride where it can do little damage. More on this in the next post.

Sunday Round-Up - January 5, 2014

This is the weekly selection of news and opinion from sources outside the US mainstream media.  Today we look at the expiration of long-term unemployment benefits, the Tea Party-controlled states of North Carolina and Florida, the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, the violence in South Sudan, and Australia's record heat wave.

Thanks to Congressional inaction, long-term unemployment benefits expired the weekend after Christmas.  To see what might happen nationally if this remains the case, take a look at what's happened in North Carolina, which is in the process of becoming one of the most regressive states in the nation. A December 17 piece on the Bloomsberg website by Evan Soltas does just that.  North Carolina Republicans cut long-term unemployment benefits earlier this year. The result: "The state is experiencing the largest labor-force contraction it's ever seen -- 77,000 fewer people were working or searching for work this October than a year ago. This should, but won’t, settle a partisan debate. Cutting unemployment insurance apparently hasn’t encouraged the unemployed to look harder for work: It has caused them to drop out of the labor force altogether."  When there are no jobs to be had, cutting unemployment benefits does nothing but add to the burdens of those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. 

Mother Jones' Kevin Drum in a December 23 article gives 10 reasons why the long-term unemployment constitutes a national catastrophe.  Besides the widespread human effects, "it turns cyclical unemployment into structural unemployment."  Cutting off long-term unemployment benefits makes the situation worse by causing people to drop out of the job market as they did in North Carolina.  Drum concludes with a faint hope for the restoration of long-term unemployment benefits. "Republicans in Congress have declined to extend unemployment benefits further, and they show no sign of changing their minds when Congress reconvenes in January. Democrats have a plan to fight for further benefits by linking them to a farm bill that Republicans want to pass, and right now that's pretty much the best hope we have to offer the workers who have been most brutally savaged by the Great Recession."

(Image from the Mother Jones article)

 

 

As the country prepares for the 2014 elections, things are looking up (believe it or not) for Republicans.  Some polls show them taking control of the Senate for the last two years of Obama's Presidency.  With the huge number of gerrymandered, safe Republican Congressional districts brought about in red states since the 2010 census and with the voter suppression laws about to take full effect, I expect Democrats to pick up very few, if any, seats in the House without a major Republican meltdown. 

 

So let's imagine what a Tea Party country would look like.  In an article appearing earlier this year, Mother Jones' Stephanie Mencimer asked "What's It Like to Wake Up From a Tea Party Binge? Just Ask Florida!"  She writes: "In just one year, Scott and his conservative allies slashed state spending by $4 billion even as they cut corporate taxes. They've rejected billions in federal funds in one of the states hardest hit by the recession. They've axed everything from health care and public transportation initiatives to mosquito control and water supply programs."  Mencimer provides the following sidebar in her article:

"From high-speed trains to care for terminally ill kids: a few of the federal grants Florida has turned down:
$2.4 billion: High-speed rail

$37.5 million: Support for people moving out of nursing homes

$31.5 million: Home visits for new mothers
$11.1 million: Teen pregnancy and STD prevention
$8.3 million: Three county health centers
$2.1 million: Helping Floridians navigate the health insurance industry
$2 million: Hospice care for children
$2 million: Aid for seniors to pay for Medicare premiums and buy prescription drugs
$1 million: Strengthening state review of insurance premium increases
$1 million: Insurance exchange to help consumers compare plans and buy subsidized coverage
$875,000: Cancer prevention"

Florida, the state with the second highest number of medically uninsured, has been in the lead in the fight against the Affordable Care Act.  The demon has been let out of the proverbial box.  Even though Governor Scott reversed his initial position and supported expansion of Medicaid, the Republicans in the legislature turned him down.  The Kaiser Foundation has estimated that about 4.8 million low-income people in states choosing not to expand Medicaid would have been covered had they lived in another state.  For Florida this number is over 750,000. 

The MJ article was written at a time when Scott was down by high double digits to a generic Democrat in the 2014 election.  Scott made his way back to as close as 4 points during the healthcare.gov rollout debacle and a November Quinnipiac poll has him trailing by just 7 points.  And that's before the big money starts to flow in. 

In Brief - Links to Other Stories of Interest

From The Guardian, Dec. 31
Rightwing Israeli government ministers have stepped up their opposition to a peace deal with the Palestinians before US secretary of state John Kerry's visit to the region this week by backing a parliamentary bill to annex a strategically significant swath of the West Bank.

From The Guardian, Jan. 3
South Sudan's government and rebels finally began talks to end weeks of bloodletting on Friday after days of delay as the United States ordered out more of its embassy staff.  However, there was no face-to-face meeting, and fighting was reported near the key town of Bor, suggesting that a halt to fighting between President Salva Kiir's SPLA government forces and rebels loyal to former vice president Riek Machar is still a long way off. At least 1000 people have died in the fighting that began last month.

From Informed Comment website, Jan. 3
Australia experienced its hottest year on record in 2013, the Bureau of Meteorology said Friday, enduring the longest heat wave ever recorded Down Under as well as destructive bushfires.

From The Guardian, Jan. 4
John Kerry, the US secretary of state, is engaged in intense efforts to coax reluctant Israeli and Palestinian leaders towards an agreement to end their decades-old conflict, against the unhelpful backdrop of mounting political pressure on both sides to reject concessions.