The Economic Crisis, Public Health & Immigration Reform

The conventional wisdom is that it would be political suicide for President Obama to undertake any new controversial policy initiatives until Congress approves some form of health care reform.  In fact, Mr. Obama said that he will not tackle the immigration issue until 2010 — is is doubtful that either the Mexicans or the Canadians will be pleased and given that projections of the size of the deficit seem to be increasing, he may not have the luxury to wait.

In the U.S., politics has increasingly taken on the characteristics of advertising.  Our attention spans have decreased.  We are now surrounding by gadgets must of us barely understand how to use.

Soundbites, rather than good policy or a sense of equity drives the political discourse.  What that means is that powerful interest groups push their agenda at the extent of a majority of the public.

President Obama probably was too busy reading when he was younger than to have the time to watch much television.  He probably put his spare time into his school’s debate team and studied the world’s greatest speech-makers.  That may be a shame.

To regain the initiative, he should announce that he will give up his current health care insurance paid for by the U.S. taxpayer and choose one of the health care options he proposes.  Then he should dare all members of Congress who failure to support his final proposal for public health to the do same.   They will have the choice to pay out-of-pocket, see if they can be covered by their spouses coverage, or search for private insurance.  Many of our older senators may find their premiums high and have trouble with pre-existing conditions.

I am perplexed when I attempt to understand what motivates those who oppose health care reform.  The U.S. is the only industustrialized country in the world without a public health system.  Part of this is because most Americans are allergic to taxes — which frankly are not too burdensome when compared with other countries where we might want to live.

On television, we can see new advertisements with horror stories about delays some people have endured waiting to have an operation performed.  Yes, this is indeed a tragedy.  But many Americans have no opportunity to have any operations performed.  What is not discussed in the commercial is that (i) it is now possible to procure private health care in Canada and (ii) the Canada’s doctor shortage in part can be attributed to individuals who after receiving a subsidized medical education at Canadian taxpayers’ expense move to the States to earn money.

President Obama fears imposing new income taxes on all but the wealthiest 2-3% of the population.  He should realize that there is a large pool of other people who could be a good source of tax revenue and they would welcome the opportunity to do so — undocumented workers (or for those who prefer — illegal immigrants).  At present, many of these people are vulnerable to unscrupulous employers who violate applicable employment laws.

It would take great courage to propose addressing the immigration era at a time of high unemployment.  Leadership demands courage.  If the 10-12 million undocumented workers in the U.S. paid all the taxes they were obligated to (not just sales and excise tax), we would discover a whole pool of money that this country could use to fund the stimulus program and reduce the deficit.

It wasn’t so long ago that both Republicans and Democrats were considering programs that would impose a fine of a couple of thousand dollars on undocumented workers who can prove they had lived in the States for a number of years, worked at jobs and had not committed any crimes.  In exchange, they would have the legal right to remain in the coutnry.  This was a reasonable proposal at the time and remains so to.

Let such people have a means to get a green card (and their children under 18 a chance to get U.S. citizenship).  These workers would certainly have to contribute to payroll taxes, and in some cases state income and property taxes.  Some may even be lucky enough to have the privilege of paying federal income taxes.

Many fear that to do so would reduce wages.  That is indeed a legitimate concern.  The answer is to make the minimum wage a living wage and increase it automatically (without the needs for Congress to pass a law), when the real cost of living increases.  Since the CPI is flawed as it does not adequately take into account the cost of housing, food and transportation, we need another measure.

Also, make it easier for workers to organize unions.  In the 1950s and ’60s, it was the unions who were concerned with the condition of the common man.  They might with time develop the clout to fight special interests.  Unions have gotten a bad rap in this country.  Unlike the European countries, the U.S. does not have a labor code to protect worker rights, as a result we have a great need for unions.  Not all union leaders were corrupt nor were all tied to organized crime.

Perhaps the above changes might produce a dynamic where it would be feasible to establish a national health care system (incorporating private insurers if it makes economic sense).  While personally, I have a hard time completing some insurance forms and understanding why some things are being reimbursed while others are not, private health insurers are supposed to be more efficient than a single payer system.  That might be true, but why not think of allowing citizens of each state to but into their state workers’ insurance plans (possibly even some employers might do so).  This is one idea that might make health care more affordable, but the debate has become a vehicle for rhetoric, rather than problem solving.

The Iranian Opposition Should Not be Abandoned

Even though it may be summer, where are the demonstrations in support of democracy in Iran?  How come professors who purport to favor human rights and civil liberties not taking out advertisements on a regular basis in the world’s most prominent newspapers criticizing what is taking place in Iran.

To a large share of the population the term “academic” means irrelevant — perhaps such individuals are right.  This is indeed a shame since within universities throughout the world are numerous respected Iranian studies specialists who could influence policy makers, the mass media and private citizens to take appropriate (as opposed to symbolic) action in response on the recent events in Iran.

Many of the many faculty members should be ashamed of themselves for not calling on persons (other than the athletes) not to attend the Beijing Olympics), and not raise questions about the wisdom and ethics of holding the 2016 Olympics in Sochi (but perhaps the rule of law may exist in Russia by that time as economic and human rights conditions in Russia worsen).

In any case, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not the legitimate President of Iran and for governments and private persons to treat him and those in his administration as such represents an ethical failing of mammoth proportions.  Many prominent Iranian leaders have shown the world great courage in expressing their views.  Some are even defendants in contemporary show trials not seen since Stalin’s purges or Mao’s cultural revolution.

We should not lose interest in the Iranian people who have demonstrated in the streets thoughout the country despite the risks of violence at the hands of the regime’s supporters.  We should applaud the courage of those Iranian officials and academics who have resigned their positions to support the establishment of democracy in the country.  Yet it seems that they are being betrayed by the silence of a large part of the international community.

It would be funny, if it were not so shameful that some British academia and certain trade unions participate in a boycott of Israeli academics — many of whom are prominent supporters of peace based on a 2-state solution.  There are few Arab countries where people could demonstrate against their governments’ policies or publish articles and books in support of their position.

There anti-apartheid movement was an important factor in bringing majority rule to South Africa.  Where are the voices condemning Zimbabwe?  The situation in Darfur has not abated.  Do we need another Rwanda to galvanize the international community to take action?

What is to be Done?

The international community should also be ready to act against such regimes. At the very least, Iranian representatives should not enjoy diplomatic privileges. Other nations should deny Iranian citizens who work for the Iranian government visas to travel abroad and prohibit the export of goods to Iran other than food, medicine and consumer items. Iranian officials should not be allowed to open bank accounts or purchase real estate or luxury items abroad.

The ability of an illegitimate government to continue in power undermines international law. Allowing a government to defy the law without consequences is analogous to enacting criminal laws and holding trials but never punishing the guilty.

Why Amy Klobachar Will Be President Obama’s Running Mate in 2012

President Barak Obama likes to make bold historical moves.  The very idea of a first-term African-American Senator from Illinois with the middle name “Hussein” successfully running for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008 would have unimaginable in 2000.  His nomination of Sonya Sotomayor to be the first Hispanic on the U.S. Supreme was a headline grabber and a source of pride for the second largest “group” (albeit diverse) in America.  At the same time, he is an individual who seeks to create a consensus on policy when feasible.  Many of President Obama’s supporters were disappointed when he did not announce that U.S. Court of Appeals Judge  Diane Wood would not be his nominee.  Her vocal support for abortion rights made her too controversial, disappointing those who wanted a new Supreme Justice with the personality and intelligence to stand up to Justice Anthony Scalia and his sophistic legal reasoning.

Barak Obama chose Joe Biden to be his running mate shortly after the Russian invasion of Georgia last year, recognizing his own limitations in the foreign policy area.  As Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a former candidate for president, Senator Biden not only had the expertise that Mr. Obama lacked as well as a compelling personal story, he would not have any skeletons in his closet.  His reputations for occasional gaffes did not disqualify him in the public’s eye — he would be no “Tom Eagleton.”  Senator Biden gladly accepted the offer to be Senator Obama’s “Advisor-in-Chief.”

Senator Obama may have wanted to create a ticket of national unity, by asking Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to be his running made.  The two got on well on their trip to Iraq.  The straight talking, former Viet Nam veteran Hagel was tougher on Bush administration officials tesfifying about our policy in Iraq on the Hill than most Democrats.  He was not seeking re-election.  Washington insiders did not overlook that Senator Hagel’s wife had contributed the maximum amount of money allowed by law to the Obama campaign.  As things turned out, President Obama received the good fortune of having Bush Defense Secretary Robert Gates agree to serve his Obama administration at a critical time — Chuck Hagel will have other opportunities in the future to serve the Obama administration;  he is not apparently moving back to Nebraska.

Joe Biden has served Barak Obama well.  Senator Biden reassured the American electorate that Mr. Obama not merely smart, articulate and personable, he was not a radical.  Furthermore, Senator Obama understood the importance of Washington and international experience.  Vice President Biden is not a young man and there is no rule that a vice president automatically remains on the ticket.   Mr. Biden could be an excellent U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, China, or the Court of St. James.

The U.S. has yet to have a female president even though women constitute a majority of the country’s population.  Hillary Clinton sought to break that glass ceiling, but her candidacy was problematic for many.  America did not want a Clinton dynasty — a Bush dynasty was a disaster of incalculable proportions.  Secretary Clinton has played an important role in advancing the role of woman in U.S. political life.  So much in fact, that Senator John McCain impulsively invited soon-to-be former Governor to be his running mate.  She may end up as a talk show host, while Senator Kay Bailey Huchinson becomes the next governor of Texas.

How might President Obama excite a portion of the country to improve his chances for re-election?  His best option would be to pick a female vice presidential candidate, who could then use the post as a stepping stone to the presidency.  There are  a host of attractive candidates, including Homeland Security Secretary and former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano — who not only has executive experience, but is gaining national security experience as well.  In addition, she could be the first president of Italian descent as well (if she can beat out Andrew Cuomo).

Yet, President Obama has a much better option, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobachar.  Ms. Kolobachar is ready for prime time.  She was the chief prosecutor in Minnesota’s largest county and not surprisingly good on talk shows.  She is smart and thoughtful.  She is not a liability on “family values” — having fought in Minnesota for one of the first laws in the country guaranteeing 48-hour hospital stays for new moms and their babies.  She is not a “blue blood” — grandfather was a miner and her mother an elementary school teacher until she was 70.

Most importantly, she will make things difficult for the one individual who would seem to be the Republican’s strongest presidential candidate, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.  Governor Pawlenty was mentioned as a possible running mate for John McCain.  For a Republican to be elected as governor in a state like Minnestota is no small feat.  In some of his recent public speaking opportunities, he sounds increasingly conservative.  As a person, he is comfortable in his skin.  Yet, if Senator Kobachar were President Obama’s running mate, he would be forced to devote a lot of time and resources to carry his home state.  This might even make Republicans reconsider their options and turn to Mitt Romney or some new face.

After four years as vice president, Amy Klobachar will have acquired top-level executive experience and been exposed to defense issues, foreign trade concerns, and foreign policy.  Amy Klobachar may not yet be a household name, but who heard of Barak Obama outside of Illinois in 2005?  A President Klobachar could become a shared legacy of Secretary Clinton and President Obama.