Brett J. Daly's Political Views

John Boehner: A little out of touch?

2009-07-18T11:32:00.003-04:00

So, I've been pretty lax with this blog. But, what better topic is there to motivate me to post again than health care? Debate is certainly healthy, and I'd expect that from the GOP. However, when House minority leader John Boehner proclaimed that the U.S. has the best health care system in the world in a CNN article, I was taken aback. What metric was he using? The World Health Organization put the United States' system at 37th in the world, so it couldn't be that. The Health Affairs journal ranked the United States dead last among 19 industrial nations in preventable death.

Hmm, so this doesn't seem to be a very factual statement. The next logical step was to take a gander at his campaign contributions, which illustrated the motivation behind the stance -- there are more than a few pharmaceutical companies/organizations listed. Even with that being the case, it seems like a dangerous stance to take for a politician located in a state with a 11.1% unemployment rate. A place where more and more people are being left without care, and unable to purchase it on their own if they are, for example, on a blood pressure medication. (Private industry is about maximizing profit; why take on a sick patient?) Debate and compromise are healthy, but fighting for the status quo is bewildering.

Obama v. McCain on Health care

2008-11-02T14:25:00.005-05:00

The USA Today did an interesting piece on each candidate's health care plan. In my opinion, health care continues to be one of the bigger threats to American business and our society in general, given the out-of-control premium hikes--due at least in part to hikes in hospital care and pharmaceutical costs. Definitely a good piece:

Article Link

In a nutshell, an independent institute predicts that 4.6 million more people would gain coverage by 2013 under McCain's plan, while 29.6 million more would under Obama's plan. McCain's tax credit would be unlikely to cover the cost for older and sicker people, while Obama's would do a better job of covering all segments. Neither one would cover everyone. At the very least, both plans improve access, but Obama's does a significantly better job of it.

The smear campaign continues

2008-11-02T14:17:00.004-05:00

If you can't beat them on the issues, try to destroy your opponent's name by attempting to scare voters into voting for you. That seems to be the McCain campaign's strategy. Sadly, I'd never bet against that strategy. The Democrats have lost on it twice before, and we'll see if it happens again. Will they regret not pulling out every skeleton in McCain and Palin's closet? Strategically, the Obama campaign seems far superior to Kerry and Gore, but still, negativity can be very effective. The polling continues to look good for Obama, but this race is pretty unprecedented, so we'll have to wait until Tuesday/Wednesday to see if they hold any water. It'll be interesting, to say the least.

Our next vice president?

2008-10-25T15:45:00.003-04:00

From a McCain adviser:

“She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone,” said this McCain adviser, “she does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else. Also she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: divas trust only unto themselves as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom.”
Source: CNN

Ouch! A little in-fighting among the McCain campaign. Of course, they find themselves down in the polls, and are resorting to the politics of fear instead of discussing the issues. But, unfortunately, such tactics that involve smears (and in many cases lies) can be effective, so I think counting them out is a mistake. I expect it to be close, but problems like this and Obama's fundraising edge puts him in a favorable position. It'll be an interesting final week and change.

The Politics of Fear

2008-10-11T00:44:00.004-04:00

With McCain's current poll numbers, his campaign has turned negative. It's difficult to blame them, as negativity has worked before--and who knows--it may work again. However, it's having frightening consequences among his base. People are going as far as yelling "off with his head." McCain is actually getting booed while trying to calm his misinformed (as much of what they're stating against Obama has been debunked long ago) down. This campaign has resorted to scare tactics by stating "dangerous," "dishonorable," and "risky" in their ads. However, these scare tactics may backfire if the result is numerous out-of-control rallies with supporters mentioning things that even McCain has to debunk. This sort of thing makes his supporters seem out-of-touch, and quite frankly, frighteningly radical. And that, I believe, is a poor way to try to appeal to those undecided voters that are in the middle of the political spectrum.

Palin's honeymoon ends

2008-09-18T16:28:00.013-04:00

Republican Chuck Hagel provided a scathing--but valid--commentary on Palin when it comes to foreign policy:

"She doesn't have any foreign policy credentials. ... You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything."

"It's a stretch to, in any way, to say that she's got the experience to be president of the United States." Source

Palin's performance during the Gibson interview, particularly on the topic of foreign policy, was quite weak. At one point, she attempted to change the topic to energy policy in a desperate effort to avoid discussing a weakness and hit a talking point.

Not surprisingly, the honeymoon period seems to be over for Palin. Her positive ratings are down and her negative ratings are up. The Gibson interview revealed her weaknesses. She remains a good pick (for McCain) as it has clearly invigorated McCain's campaign, but with that and the polls showing Obama regaining the lead, the honeymoon is over. With the economic troubles, the focus returns to topics of substance.

Palin's Punches

2008-09-04T00:01:00.005-04:00

Listening to Sarah Palin take shots at Obama because he's inexperienced was borderline comical. She took those shots right after she tried to defend her "experience" in Wasilla--a town of 6,715 residents. Student government presidents in colleges often have to govern more constituents than she did. She also threw a few punches that implied Obama is simply good at giving speeches.

Hmm, so the GOP is trying to frame Obama as being good at speech delivery, but light on experience. Doesn't that sound an awful lot like Sarah Palin? Of course, they highlighted how it's good that she's an outsider. So, why isn't that a strength of Obama's? You just can't have it both ways.

Frankly, I think the GOP erased their primary talking points with Palin. Obama doesn't have enough experience? Nor does Palin, and with McCain's age, the VP nominee is that much more important. The digs tonight seemed highly hypocritical.

But, don't worry, she's a reformer. Oh, wait, she supported the "bridge to nowhere" until she decided to use--not return--federal funds for other projects. She left that out of tonight's speech. Oops.

Signs of Desperation from McCain?

2008-07-21T14:03:00.006-04:00

It's early, but McCain is trailing by a decent margin. If I were him, I wouldn't be terribly concerned yet, but it looks like he's getting a little desperate:

McCain ad blames Obama for rising gas price (CNN)

Many of the proposed solutions, such as offshore drilling, wouldn't impact prices for years anyway. It seems like a band-aid to a serious problem that'll only have a modest long-term effect on prices to me.

Oh well, if Obama gets desperate, he can claim that McCain hates the environment. I used to like McCain, but over the past four years he's become quite the flip flopper. I like politicians that are open to reason and may change their stance on issues based on a solid presentation of evidence, but I have less respect for people that change their stance on issues purely because of party pressure...

The Definition of Hypocrisy

2007-11-13T11:44:00.001-05:00

President Bush's recent statements reek of desperation from a lame duck leader. This latest one is no exception:

''The Congress now sitting in Washington holds this philosophy,'' Bush said. ''Their majority was elected on a pledge of fiscal responsibility, but so far it is acting like a teenager with a new credit card. Source

Truly hilarious. Who is he to lecture anyone on fiscal responsibility? How is our deficit doing, and has it grown under his watch? Should he have cut taxes given the increased expenses incurred due to his actions? Oh, and how is our dollar fairing? Think there might be a connection? This isn't difficult.

Oh yes, I know, we're in a time of war. I'd accept that excuse if the stated reason for going to war was truthful. But, time has shaken that one out. It's entertaining watching him try to support the status quo on health care despite record increases during his time, and now he's posturing as a fiscal conservative.

Actions speak louder than words. Fiscal conservatism and this president don't belong in the same sentence.

Health care premiums to increase 14.1% in 2008

2007-07-08T23:27:00.000-04:00

I wonder how long this issue can be ignored? Hewitt Associates is projecting that HMO premium rates will increase 14.1% in 2008. So, our system that performs poorly in regards to doctors per capita, infant mortality, and life expectancy will see an increase at over three times inflation in 2008. It not only harms United States citizens, it also costs this country jobs. We're already paying double per citizen versus other first-world nations with superior metrics.

Michael Moore couldn't have timed his movie Sicko much better. It exposes some of misinformation that is readily spread by special interests in regards to other national systems, and people are going to feel a major hit in their pocket book soon--yet again. Hey, at least the government is looking into charging our 9/11 rescue workers who finally got proper care in Cuba. Wouldn't addressing this problem be a better use of their time? Of course, the five-cent pharmaceuticals they received aren't likely to keep the special interests happy. Think about the money those poor pharmaceutical companies lost when they're charing $175 here.

An All New York Presidential Race?

2007-06-20T22:26:00.000-04:00

As I read this article about Michael Bloomberg leaving the GOP and potentially entering the presidential race as an independent, it got me thinking about the possibility that the three leading nominees (Republican, Democrat, and Independent) for president in 2008 could have received their most recent political experience in New York. Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton is one of New York's representatives in the United States Senate, Rudy Giuliani is New York City's previous mayor, and Bloomberg is New York City's current mayor. While I haven't looked into it, I have to believe that would be a first.

Of course, Clinton and Giuliani have lots of work ahead of them. Clinton still holds a solid lead and I expect her to emerge, but I think Barack Obama is a strong candidate too. Giuliani might be a bit "too liberal" to get through the GOP's primaries, although he still holds a narrow lead according to most polls. Thompson, a long-time lobbyist, seems to be gaining ground. I'd be a little surprised if Rudy survives the smear tactics that are sure to occur to him due to his beliefs on gun control and abortion.

Sobering United States Healthcare Statistics

2007-04-03T22:36:00.000-04:00

Strategy + Business has two interesting health care articles in the spring issue. The article titled "Does Health Care Have a Future" summarizes points from eight different books. I really think the opening paragraph is telling:

It is no secret that health care in the U.S. is in crisis. Americans share a sense of impending catastrophe, and for good reason. Health care in the United States consumes some $2 trillion per year — 16 percent of the GDP, and four times the expenditure for national defense. Yet U.S. health care’s performance is ranked 15th globally by the World Health Organization; American life expectancy ranks 22nd in the world, and infant mortality ranks 39th. The U.S. spends more on health-care insurance than any other nation, yet 46 million Americans do without — a number that increases every year. The out-of-pocket costs of those who have insurance have nearly tripled in the last six years, as health-care premiums continue to rise at nearly three times the general inflation rate. Unpaid and unpayable health-care bills account for the majority of all personal bankruptcies in the country. (Flower & Knott, 2007)

One of the suggested solutions is to make health care costs and quality more transparent. It cites that those parts of the industry that must really compete for the health care dollar--like plastic surgery and laser eye surgery--generally perform better. It's a valid insight. I may give my opinion on the other article in the business blog as it discusses a retail system.

The 2008 Presidential Race

2007-02-18T22:54:00.000-05:00

It keeps getting more and more interesting. Clinton and Obama are the clear front runners among the Democrats right now. Perhaps Edwards will become more of a factor as things progress and Richardson is trying to get into the thick of things too. McCain and Giuliani seem to be receiving the most mention from the GOP, while Gingrich is also being mentioned.

Obama seems capable of giving Clinton a run--especially since some question Clinton's chances if she is their candidate. I don't think Giuliani stands a chance--gun control supporting candidates with a pro-choice stance don't tend to do well with the GOP's core. McCain may not appeal to the far right, but I think he has a better shot. We'll see if age is tossed into the equation though. Romney is another possibility.

So, it's really any one's guess right now. I still believe Obama v. McCain would make for a refreshingly civil campaign. Gingrich v. Clinton could be a little deja vu and quite the battle. We'll have to wait and see what unfolds.

Bush Healthplan Update

2007-01-24T23:21:00.000-05:00

This is just a quick update on my previous post. This Christian Science Monitor article summarizes things well. Ultimately, it sounds like this plan has no chance as it was presented. But, I'm happy the president finally addressed the issue and put it on the table. I agree that it doesn't seem fair that those without health care are forced to spend their after-tax dollars if they want health care while those receiving discounted plans from their employer are more fortunate. So, I think he made a good point there.

However, I see two primary issues. First off, it penalizes those in states where it costs more for coverage because the cap is the same for all. That number should be adjusted so someone in a more expensive state isn't further penalized (with taxes) for receiving essentially the same plan as someone in a lower cost state who actually receives a deduction. Secondly, it sounds like they are pushing people to deductible plans. In other words, you pay the first $500 or $1,000 out of pocket, and then they start covering you. The problem with this is it discourages preventative care. I know I'd be less likely to get a checkup if I knew it would be $500 out-of-pocket after the visit and blood work. And, we know preventative care is cheaper in the long run. Of course, unnecessary visits should be penalized.

So, kudos to the president for finally putting this on the table. Ultimately, given the efficiency and positive health indicators in other industrialized nations with national health care, I'd like the nation to examine something along those lines. In India, surgeons perform several times as many surgeries per day as American doctors. This "manufacturing-like" process sounds like a bad thing right? Well, it isn't. Their doctors make fewer mistakes during surgery. Obviously, that's an extreme example. But, despite the scare tactics, many western nations with "socialized medicine" spend half as much per capita while boasting better health statistics.

And, maybe some progress is being made at a state level in the United States. Massachusetts requires coverage, while California looks like they are going to do the same. Hopefully this will force cost reductions so America is no longer a cash cow for much of the pharmaceutical and health care industries.

Attention to Health Care from the Current Administration?

2007-01-20T16:12:00.000-05:00

Yes, it's true. Suddenly, after the health care topic has been largely ignored during President Bush's tenure, it's receiving real attention. On Tuesday, the president will announce his plan for tax deductions to encourage those without health care to purchase it. It appears that those who share the costs at work will also qualify for this incentive.

Is this a major step? I'm not sure yet--we'll have to hear the details. The administration claims that 80% of those with employer-based plans will benefit in the end despite some plans being taxable under this proposal. But, I'll be interested in hearing the real breakdown.

Regardless of it, it's nice to see the topic getting attention. Anything that can boost the number of those with health care will boost our economy and our nation's health. Currently, many are discouraged from getting preventative care which is extremely costly in the long run. It's amazing how previously ignored topics suddenly gain traction when two parties have some power.

Barack Obama's New Book

2007-01-04T23:29:00.000-05:00

Barack Obama finished The Audacity of Hope a little while back. I've gotten around to taking the book out of the library, and I must say I'm extremely impressed with his understanding of the current situation and his vision moving forward. Here's a really great quote from the book, one I really believe is right on the money:

Republicans are fighting the last war, the war they waged and won in the eighties, while Democrats are forced to fight a rearguard action, defending the New Deal programs of the thirties.

Neither strategy will work anymore. America can't compete with China and India simply by cutting costs and shrinking government--unless we're willing to tolerate a drastic decline in American living standards with smoke-choked cities and beggars lining the streets. Nor can America compete simply by erecting trade barriers and raising the minimum wage--unless we're willing to confiscate all the world's computers.

But our history should give us confidence that we don't have to choose between an oppressive, government-run economy and a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism. It tells us that we can emerge from great economic upheavals stronger, not weaker. Like those who came before us, we should be asking ourselves what mix of policies will lead to a dynamic free market and widespread economic security, entrepreneurial innovation and upward mobility. And we can be guided by Lincoln's simply maxim: that we will do collectively through our government, only those things we cannot do as well or at all individually or privately.

In other words, we should be guided by what works.

He then prescribes a number of realistic fixes. Well, perhaps not realistic with all of the special interests in our political system. But, fiscally, they are realistic. I'll let you take the book out of your library instead of trying to summarize it in a precious few sentences. Ultimately, I've found a potential presidential candidate that I can really get behind.

Health Care Reform

2006-12-17T18:39:00.000-05:00

Two Rochester Institute of Technology philosophy professors are pushing for health care reform in their new book called Health Care Reform: Ethics and Politics. I caught Dr. Timothy Engström on a show on PBS in Rochester and it sounds like he shares many of my concerns. He touched on the well-organized effort by health care to scare citizens away from a national health care system in the 90s despite the scare tactics being blatantly false. Why is America one of the few first-world nations without such a system? And why is America's coverage rate so poor despite its expenses being so high?

In the discussion, he mentioned how this mediocre and costly health care system is helping to drive jobs to other nations. Given the very heavy cost burden in this country, it makes sense to look elsewhere. I've seen stories about jobs going to Canada partially because of health care. He mentioned the possibility of corporations helping drive reform. In my opinion, that's what it'll take to create real reform. It may sound pessimistic, but I think it'll take a united effort that forms a more powerful "special interest" than the health care and pharmaceutical industries. Otherwise, they are corporate beasts that are difficult to defeat.

I'm looking forward to getting a look at their publication which is a group of essays. If they're as good as his discussion on PBS/WXXI, it should be a great read.

A Draft in the United States?

2006-11-22T14:47:00.000-05:00

That's what is being proposed by Congressman Rangel. First off, will it happen? No. But, it's an interesting idea. First off, it'll create more equality in the military. Anyone who supports a war will really support a war. Why? Because they are in effect supporting the concept of sending their own relatives (or themselves) off to war no matter their income level--it does encourage a little more accountability. I suspect the United States would be much less likely to go to war on "faulty intelligence" if something like this was in place.

With that said, forcing people to go to war might also lead to unmotivated people destroying morale. Of course, morale isn't real high when the stays are extremely long either. But, I suspect it would be problematic for the military. Required civil service might be a little more interesting, as it would force responsibility while not forcing people to risk their lives. So, it's an interesting concept with ups and downs. It won't end up going anywhere I'm sure, but it makes for interesting discussion.

American Politics: A Return to the Center

2006-11-08T23:07:00.000-05:00

The call for change was loud and clear yesterday. As expected, the House of Representatives was won by the Democrats. But, much more surprisingly, the Democrats have taken the Senate 51-49. It seemed like an unlikely scenario going in, but with Webb's victory just called (although a recount may be requested), almost everything went perfectly for the Democrats.

So, what does this mean? Iraq has obviously been a mess. With President Bush announcing Rumsfeld is stepping down--only a week after he said he'd remain--it's clear that they were disappointed with the results and feel Iraq is the problem. And, it is to a degree. But, as Senator McCain mentioned, the GOP's spending was an issue for their base too.

What's exciting in my opinion is this should signal a return to the center. Numerous policies that got away from our nation's founding principles should be remedied. Narrow issues that appeal to single-issue voters like abortion, gay marriage, and guns didn't carry the day--it came down to the big picture. Fear also didn't tilt the election, or perhaps it did in favor of the Democrats. People may be realizing that aggression abroad only makes this nation more vulnerable.

Luckily, I think both sides see the need to compromise and work together once again. The Republicans received a very sobering message loud and clear. Democrats, I believe, realize they won a lot of tight races and in some cases they benefited from massive failure by the other candidate (or, in many cases, failure of just their candidate's party). While President Bush's power has been reduced, the incentive for government to be productive has been boosted.

In my opinion, it was a great day for America. I believe it's rarely healthy to have Congress and the Executive Branch controlled by the same party. And, thankfully, that's no longer the case. Let's get back to sensible spending, international cooperation, moderate policy making, and less indirect special interest control of our politics.

Fiscal Responsibility and the GOP?

2006-11-06T19:52:00.000-05:00

On election eve, along with the social security advertisements the GOP is running locally, the party is also talking about candidates who might vote for (or have voted for) tax increases. Of course, they forget to point out who is responsible for driving up governmental spending of late. Tax cuts mixed with spending increases are fiscally irresponsible. It's quite a change for a party that used to be considered fiscally conservative.

I am happy the advertisements will end. And, here in Rochester, GOP-sponsored "doom and gloom" advertisements seem to be outnumbering those by the Democrats. They're even branding a candidate as an out-of-touch millionaire (how much, exactly, is in the bank accounts of Bush and Cheney?). It has been another entertaining round of election tactics. But, again, I'm ready for them to end. If we could only end advertising and replace the advertisements with debates....

GOP Election Tactics

2006-11-03T15:36:00.000-05:00

As the election draws near, the GOP is beginning to look a little desperate. Their attempt to tie candidates to Nancy Pelosi seems like a surprisingly weak tactic. As much as I'd like to believe America is filled with people who know tons of officials, I suspect the odds of those they are trying to appeal to knowing much about her are slim to none. In Rochester, the GOP is sponsoring ads against two congressional candidates because they mentioned there might be a need to raise the social security age at some point. That's quite a change in stance given what the party was pumping for social security not that long ago. But, I suspect their tactics on social security will be far more effective than the Pelosi tactic. Then, of course, there is the beating of a dead horse on Kerry misreading his jab at Bush. It was an unfortunate mistake, but, let's be honest, President Bush has books on his slip ups. Plus, President Bush helped the Democrats that day by proclaiming Rumsfeld's job is safe for the next two years.

This leads me to ponder whether the GOP has lost some of its savvy when it comes to election strategy? While I'm not terribly impressed with what they're doing, I'm not sure the DNC is capitalizing on everything that it could be either. Additionally, even GOP supporters have to concede that they have a little less to work with this year. So, we'll see what unfolds during this final stretch run and then we'll have a concrete answer to this question.

2006 Election Stretch Run

2006-10-29T17:30:00.001-05:00

Democrats feel they've closed the gap when it comes to last-second strategy and organization. I'm not so sure, but time will tell the story. I'm not sure the White House's media day with the right-wing media was much of a boon though. Rush Limbaugh's accusation that Michael J. Fox was exaggerating the effects of Parkinson's disease can't exactly be viewed as "compassionate." I don't exactly feel like these last second tactics are home runs. Even here in Rochester, Laura Bush came to support two candidates that are or were tied up in scandals. And frankly, both candidates are in districts that are normally cakewalks for the right.

It seems that a lot of typical locks for the GOP are in play. I expect most to go to the Republicans--as simple use of scare tactics to appeal to single-issue voters will probably do the trick--but the Democrats should score a few upsets. The Electoral Vote website, as of now, is predicting a Senate majority for the GOP and a House majority for the Democrats. I still expect that's what will end up occurring next week. The opportunity is there for Democrats--I just wish they were a little more united in their message. And, fiscal responsibility is an area where Democrats hold an edge of late that they might want to leverage.

The Midterm Elections

2006-10-13T15:36:00.001-04:00

It seems fairly safe to say that we'll see some changes come November. Americans are increasingly unhappy with what has been the status quo. In an interesting Time article, it appears that Republicans are shifting their focus to the Senate. The Foley scandal has put several seats in the House of Representatives into play for Democrats and a takeover by the Democratic Party looks increasingly likely. The Senate is much more of a stretch for Democrats, although the Republicans misfortunes of late have made that more plausible. Consequently, it appears the GOP is focusing on holding the Senate. Time will tell the story, by minus any major new events, I suspect Democrats will take the House and Republicans will maintain the Senate. Democrats have the opportunity for both, but it's tough to bet against the GOP's strategists.

Troubling Trends

2006-10-04T09:36:00.000-04:00

Loub Dobbs highlights a number of concerns that I share in an article that he posted today on CNN. He looks at how a number of factors are leading to the increasing economic polarization between the richest Americans and the rest. Ridiculous healthcare costs, increasing tuition for higher education, falling real wages, and high housing costs are making the American dream harder for many. Of course, housing costs are coming crashing down in many overpriced markets, but that's a different topic. Anyways, I thought it was an interesting essay.

Is Bush Politicizing Terrorism?

2006-09-12T15:55:00.000-04:00

An evenly divided swing district in Colorado has many people that think so according to a NY Times article. These conclusions were made before Democrats began accusing Mr. Bush of doing exactly that. I tend to agree with that assertion. Americans seem to be wising up to politicians playing on their largest fears. So, politically, the 9/11 speech that included political comments yesterday might have been a poor move. And, since a recent poll found 57% of Americans think terrorists will find a way to attack no matter what the government does, it looks like politicizing terrorism may not be as effective this year as it had been in the past. The elections this year will be telling.