A Slight Delay

McCain’s distortions and fabrications are numerous and well-documented; so well, in fact, that some of the truths he’s told have flown under the radar. Case in point: the McCain healthcare plan. McCain touted his plan during the debates (with 63 million people watching), and millions more have likely seen or read of that performance and plan in the days since.

What isn’t getting much of an airing is one of the intended consequences of McCain’s plan. Those of us who are receiving healthcare through our employers will now find our health insurance taxed as income. Yes, you read correctly; the man who promises to cut your taxes any time he’s within shouting distance of a microphone–the same man who tells you Barack Obama will raise your taxes–is, to borrow a turn of phrase from Sarah Palin, fixin’ to raise your taxes. Well, golly. And he’ll fine those who can’t afford the (on average) $12,000 tab to insure their families even after the $5,000 spoonful of sugar he promises taxpayers to offset the expense. A logical question to ask: who, exactly, benefits here?

A modest proposal to those of you reading this: Tom Brokaw asked during the debate,
“Is health care in America a privilege, a right or a responsibility?” It ought not to be considered a privelage, especially not when we have 47+ million who are, by any definition, “underprivelaged,” which is to say, uninsured. What might be the consequences of treating healthcare like a utility, back in the times when utilities were still regulated?

Ladies and Gentlemen of the 110th Congress,

I understand that these are dire economic times in which we are living. And I understand the urge to do something, anything, to get us out of this mess. People have, after all, played the markets these last several years like some kind of vast, diversified, highly leveraged casino… and they’ve forgotten the cardinal rule of gambling, which is that the house always wins.

But I’m getting a bit off-topic here. I understand that the bailout failed to pass two days ago, and comes up again this evening, probably in a slightly altered form. I hope it’s not too late to offer a suggestion.

Here’s my proposal: buy a good, high-quality mattress for each man, woman, and child in the United States. Heck, it wouldn’t even have to be one for each of the nation’s 305 million people; some are married, some shacked up, so that’s got to shave about 100 million mattresses off your total. Of course, you can’t have a bunch of comfy mattresses going to everyone out there and then have them put inferior bedding on them. Include a stimulus check, to be used in the bearer’s home goods store of choice, to purchase some good sheets. Maybe something in flannel, or a 600+ thread count. You might want to tack on a few extra bucks for those who plan on buying satin sheets, since I’ve heard that they’re treacherous… someone will need to take into account those sheet injuries.

 Now, you may be wondering what I’m smoking to suggest something like this (if you must know, Camels, though I’m not choosy). It’s simple. You have a nation that’s losing sleep over a terribly managed economy, to say nothing of what it’s doing to their savings and what they’ve squirreled away for retirement; that’s cut out at least ten of its customary forty winks wondering how it’ll afford college, gas, medical expenses, and groceries, to say nothing of wondering which of the above they’ll have to cut to meet the payments on the other bits. It’s the least you can do, really.

Besides, it’ll give us all a safer place for our money.

“The economy is fundamentally sound.” –Herbert Hoover, 1931
“The fundamentals of our economy are strong.” –John McCain, 2008 
“The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.” –John McCain, 2008

Economic box score:

• Unemployment: 6.1%
• Deficit: $502 billion dollars
• United States rate of borrowing: $2 billion per day.
• National debt: $9.6 trillion

Then there’re the casualties: AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Sterns… the list goes on, and that isn’t even to mention the impact on 300+ million Americans. The economy, if it’s not quite down the drain, is clearly circling it.

Or is it? It depends, apparently, on who you ask. An informal poll (that is to say, talking to friends and coworkers; we’re not Zogby over here), or a quick skim of the newspapers, magazines, and television, would seem to indicate to the average person that all isn’t sunshine and roses. But then, John McCain isn’t your average person. (more…)

Got an email today from the Obama campaign, reminding me to register to vote. So I’m reminding anyone who’s reading this (both of you) to register too, and/or to make sure that your registration is for your current address. I checked both campaigns’ websites, and each has an area on the site devoted to voter registration. Feedback on the registration process (not that anyone from either campaign will read this, ever):

The Obama site’s registration is visually attractive, but a bit of a mess (the DOB field refused to fill out correctly). The McCain site, while more businesslike, was also quicker and easier to navigate. That said, the Obama campaign had the foresight to email its supporters to make sure that they actually registered; as yet, the McCain campaign has not (I’m on both mailing lists). Both sites will give you a PDF that you can print and mail in order to register.

If you want to register via Obama’s site, click here.

If, on the other hand, you’d rather register via McCain’s site, click here.

For an added thrill (albeit a small one), register via the site of the candidate you don’t plan on voting for. There’s something to be said for filling out the other party’s name under “affiliation.” Just because. Now, go!

The top ten reasons Sarah Palin scares the hell out of me, in no particular order:

1. The “One Heartbeat” Test: The conventional wisdom is that in presidential elections, voters are primarily eyeing the top of the ticket. As usual, that’s too much convention, and not enough wisdom. Past experience shows–from Lincoln to McKinley, Arthur, Kennedy, and a host of other close calls (FDR and Ronald Reagan come to mind)–that it’s generally a good idea to pay attention to a ticket’s number two spot ’cause, well, you just never know. Factor in McCain’s age, POW experience, and health issues, and it becomes apparent that anyone he had on his ticket would deserve closer scrutiny. To her discredit, Palin does not stand up under that scruitiny.

2. The Morals Issue: There’s nothing wrong with running, or governing, from a moral center. The one biggest thing that was overlooked in the flap over the flap over Palin’s pregnant daughter is exactly why this was such a big deal: when you run on a platform that not only assumes, but also loudly proclaims, your moral superiority, your morals will necessarily be put under a microscope. As a moralist, though, Palin inspires a kind of Bierceian cynicism; she’s the kind of moralist who seems to define morality in terms of how others ought to behave.

3. The Maverick Problem: As Palin likes to point out, and the advertisements have hammered home with their usual lack of subtlety, she is a “Maverick” in the McCain mold. It’s an ingenious bit of branding, to be sure, but falls short on the merits. McCain, as has been pointed out elsewhere, hews very close to the Bush-Cheney line; not rhetorically (regardless of the points that’s scored him), but practically–in his legislative record, where it counts. Similarly, the moments when Palin has gone against the grain–as she did when taxing oil companies in Alaska and then passing the profits back to the taxpayers–stand out precisely because they’re so rare. The stance toward oil companies was likely softened considerably by the fact that she’s campaigned strongly for drilling offshore and in the ANWR. (more…)

Since John McCain has apparently backed off his pledge to run a high-minded campaign (actually, he didn’t back off, so much as dive), and since the Obama-Hilton-Spears ad seems to point an awkward way forward for his campaign, I can’t wait to see the first Presidential debates. Issues? Who needs ‘em? I’d pay good money to see McCain play the dozens versus Obama on national television (my money, incidentally, is on the Senator from Illinois).

I mean, really now. Tell me you wouldn’t love to tune in CNN to see something like this:

ANDERSON COOPER: One of the members of our viewing audience sent this to us today by email, for John McCain. And I quote: “Senator, your mother is so ugly that…”

Stay tuned.

One explanation that I hear given for Barack Obama’s success is that a lot of white people somehow hope that voting for him will, in effect, let them off the hook for the long and complicated history of race relations in this country. While I think that hypothesis is too simplistic by half, I think there may at least be a little something to it.

There’s a tendency, I think, to want some kind of skeleton key or Rosetta stone that will decipher what it is to experience life through someone else’s eyes, or in their skin. We look for that “Eureka!” moment, when it all makes sense and we attain a Zen-like clarity, as though you could say, “Well, now I’ve read Shadow and Act/seen Malcolm X/listened to What’s Going On and Songs in the Key of Life/eaten collard greens/watched Roots/observed Dr. King’s birthday/learned the principles of Kwanzaa. Now I understand!”

Uh, no. (more…)

Got an interesting email yesterday from Rick Davis, John McCain’s campaign manager. I should note that it wasn’t to me, as such; it’s not like I have connections, I just signed up for the McCain mailing list on the candidate’s website. Anyway, Davis says of Barack Obama:

Sadly, Senator Obama’s actions are just more politics as usual. I don’t know who should be more disappointed - the supporters whose faith in Senator Obama has already been betrayed, or the people who Senator Obama now expects to believe his new sales pitch. Either way, one thing is clear - Senator Obama has shown that he is just another politician.

And who’s calling the kettle black?

This isn’t to say that Obama is some new breed of politician; we turn those out with such alarming regularity that they’ve lost their irregularity (what would be truly new would be a politician playing the game and admitting it). What Davis’s statement smacks of is a man crying sour grapes, having been beaten at his own game. In a country with the collective attention span of a fruit fly, it’s easy to forget sometimes that much of Obama’s appeal derives from many of the same things that had people taking a serious look at McCain in 2000: what was, or at least appeared to have been, a willingness to buck the party regulars, to take unpopular stands, and to propose (believably, for a change) that government didn’t have to be an albatross around the necks of those it proposed to govern. Yes, I’m aware that there are some deep ideological and practical divisions between the two men; that said, I’d still argue that there are also some deep similarities between them.

And while we’re talking about “just another politician,” let’s take a look at John McCain. The new 2008 John McCain, with all sorts of features added over the last eight years. That peskily principled stance on the environment has been ditched in favor of expanded drilling that–by Conservative economists’ estimates–will have little economic impact, and that little bit will only come years from now. He’s flip-flopped on “agents of intolerance,” welcoming the likes of Hagee, Parsley, and Falwell into the fold. The New Republic, Balkinization, Crooks And Liars and Carpetbagger Report all list several more reversals of position, so I won’t list every last one of them here. To be fair, at least he’s consistent on abortion; he’s still against it, having already reversed his position in time for the primaries in 2000. (more…)

High hopes accompany Barack Obama’s apparent nomination for the Democrats’ top spot this fall, just as some on the GOP side think that John McCain will bring their party, and the country, real and lasting change. If history–both long-term and recent–is any indication, though, voters on both sides of the aisle should approach the race as much with their heads as their hearts; if not, there’ll be some pretty dissatisfied and disaffected people from one end of this country to the other come 2012. (more…)

Is it just me, or is there something inherently annoying in prefacing an apology by directing it to those you “may have offended”? I hate to be a cynic, but I suppose I ought not to have expected any different from a lawyer. Clinton’s MO during the dust-up over her RFK/Obama remarks has been consistent, if nothing else, with the way she’s run the rest of her campaign: say or do something that would get anyone else run out of town on a rail, then deny as much as possible, all while blaming everyone in sight. Blame anyone–the media, your opponent, American voters–but yourself.

This story has been covered extensively, to put it kindly. If you haven’t already gotten the rundown, this story in the New York Times is as good a place to start as any. And if you’ve had enough of the presumptive (though losing) Democratic nominee–whether for months now, or because this was the last straw–you’ll probably find a kindred spirit in Keith Olbermann, whose May 23 Special Comment should be listened to by anyone who has given Senator Clinton a free pass up to this point.