Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wayners who wrote (27949)	3/23/2010 9:14:40 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

Waterloo March 21st, 2010 at 4:59 pm by David Frum frumforum.com Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s. It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But: (1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs. (2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now. So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson: A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves. At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994. Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure. This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none. Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994. Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law. No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal? We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother? I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds. So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours. Follow David Frum on Twitter: @davidfrum Due to the high volume of traffic this piece is receiving, comments have been suspended. We will restore comments once traffic returns to normal levels.

To: Wayners who wrote (27949)	3/23/2010 9:18:10 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

Health Reform Makes US More Like Europe - Thank Goodness March 22, 2010 By Richard Cohen realclearpolitics.com Mitch McConnell is right. The Republican Senate leader, a man whose vision is to deny others theirs, told The New York Times that President Obama's health care proposal was part of an attempt to "turn us into a Western European country," which, the good Lord willing, is what will now happen. I, for one, could use a dash of Germany, where there are something like 200 private health insurance plans and where everyone is covered and no one goes broke on account of bad health. It's great to be healthy in America, but for too many Americans, it's better to be sick somewhere else. I would also take France or Switzerland, but mostly I'd like Japan, which I move to Western Europe for the sake of argument, and where medical care is as good (or better) than it is here and much less expensive. What all these countries have in common is the recognition that health care is, like food or education, a universal right. The United States, to McConnell's evident chagrin, is now moving this way. Do not underestimate the importance of Sunday's House vote. It was momentous and it will not be repealed by the results of the November elections. Against the hopes and insistence of the GOP, America did not reverse Social Security (as late as the Eisenhower administration, that was the fervent wish of the party's right wing) or Medicaid. The worth of these programs became evident and thus politically sacrosanct. When Americans figure out that insurance companies can no longer deny them coverage because, as it happens, they urgently need it, and when they discover that their kids can remain covered until age 26 and when they can for the first time afford health insurance themselves, this law will become untouchable. Self-interest usually trumps ideology. This battle was never entirely about health care. The fury of the opposition -- not a single Republican vote -- is as historically significant as the passage of the legislation itself. There is something cleaving this country, something represented by the election of Barack Obama -- the very change he either promised or threatened, take your pick -- and the hyper-exaggeration of the ideological threat the man represented. Caricatured as a socialist, a radical, a hard-left liberal and even an alien, he is actually the very soul of center-left moderation, cautious to a fault. It is the same with the health care package itself. Whatever it is, it is not socialism. For all the fulminations about the American free enterprise system, private insurance companies are retained. The government will not do what governments all over the world do -- provide either health insurance or health care itself. Does the legislation provide for a government role? Yes. But there is a government role in virtually everything -- or haven't you noticed the tag on your pillow? The reason this fight took so long is that the culture is about evenly divided. It's not that the political system is broken. On the contrary, it's not supposed to work without consensus. It did as designed -- marched in place and bided its time until Sunday it moved just a bit. Consider how long it has taken. Harry Truman wanted this bill. Anger comes from fear. What was once a white Protestant nation is changing hue and religion. It is no accident that racial epithets were yelled at black lawmakers on Saturday in Washington and a kind of venom even gets exclaimed from the floor of the Congress: "You lie!" "Baby killer!" The protesters were protesting health care legislation. But they feared they were losing their country. Ever since the New Deal, the GOP has been the Party of The Past. It said no to the New Deal. It said no to Social Security. Important leaders -- Barry Goldwater, for instance -- said no to civil rights as they now are saying no to gay rights. The party plays the role of the scold, the finger-wagger who warns of this or that dire outcome -- not all of it wrong -- and then gets bypassed by progress. The GOP then picks itself up and resumes its fight against the next innovation. Usually, it wins some battles; usually, it loses the war. McConnell had his point. Europe is way ahead of us in compassion for the sick. Its systems, though, are hardly perfect and government debt is always a concern. Still, we now know which way we are going. The culture wars will continue, but the outcome, Mitch, is no longer in doubt. cohenr@washpost.com Page Printed from: realclearpolitics.com at March 23, 2010 - 07:59:57 PM CDT

To: Wayners who wrote (27949)	3/23/2010 9:27:08 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 103300

Still Seething Over Bank Bailouts March 23, 2010 By Frida Ghitis realclearpolitics.com The people of Iceland have just shouted a message that demands close attention from the rest of the world: They are angry - furious - at the way governments have handled the irresponsible behavior of banks. They profoundly resent having to pay for the mistakes of wealthy, unrepentant financiers. They are not alone. The sentiment is not unique to Reykjavik. Just ask anyone in Peoria, or just about anywhere in the United States, Britain, France and beyond. Politicians who think they managed to leave behind them the perilous politics of bank bailouts are in for a surprise. Anger at the recent multibillion-dollar rescue of banks - even if it saved the economy from disaster - continues to simmer in the hearts of voters. And the seething, fueled by the stench of giant post-bailout bonuses, burns across party lines. Iceland and its tiny population of 300,000 became a microcosm of the financial crisis that gripped the world starting in late 2007. Almost every Icelandic bank went bankrupt. One bank, Icesave, had attracted thousands of customers in Britain and the Netherlands with enticing interest rates. When the bank flopped, the British and Dutch governments reimbursed their citizens and demanded that Iceland reimburse them. On March 6, Icelanders voted on a reimbursement plan their prime minister told them was crucial to the country's economic survival. At a price of $5.3 billion, it amounted to 40 percent of Iceland's GDP, or $65,000 plus interest for each household. Enraged voters, who had already expressed themselves unsubtly by throwing rocks at government buildings, hurled an even harsher missile. More than 90 percent gave a resounding No to the plan. Barely 1.8% voted Yes. In the end, Iceland will find a way to pay the defunct bank's debt; it has to. But the real problem will not end there. It has not ended anywhere. THE TROUBLE with bank bailouts without consequences for bankers is not just that astute politicians on the Left or the Right can easily exploit popular anger. The real problem is that the system distorts the functioning of the economy in a way that will inevitably lead to another calamity. This is not an anti-business argument. The system, as it stands now, is corroding the underpinnings of a market economy. Sure, governments could not allow "too-big-to-fail" banks to go under. Their collapse would have taken us all down. But by showing bankers and investors there was no risk in risky investments (because Washington - or London or Paris - would save us) they distorted the system and now encourage more irresponsible risk-taking. The legendary capitalist Warren Buffett has a solution. Despite the recent legislation proposed by Sen. Christopher Dodd, Buffett believes too-big-to-fail will never go away. Given that, he says, "If an institution had to go to society and say ‘save me because if you don't I'm going to topple society,' I would have it so that that person, the CEO and his spouse at least come away broke." In other words, if the bank needs a bailout, the CEO and his top aides should go bankrupt. Never mind bonuses. Buffett sees the risk of personal financial ruin as the penalty that will keep bankers from gambling with our futures. And he says the risk should not be covered by insurance or by the corporation. As it is, risk is now covered by taxpayers. Iceland's president noted that regular people, "farmers and fishermen, taxpayers, doctors, nurses, teachers" are being asked to pay for the misdeeds of greedy bankers. This is morally wrong. And it is also dangerous. Britain and France have instituted a 50% tax on large bonuses. This may help quench the thirst for revenge, but it does not solve the problem. In Israel, Bank Leumi has come up with a formula that could result in "negative bonuses" - the executive has to pay the bank when performance is poor. That's closer to the mark, but still not enough, especially not when the nation's entire economy is at stake. The voters in Iceland had their turn at the voting booth. They proved that the bitter taste of bank bailouts has not left. In the United States and elsewhere, clever politicians will find the issue, unsolved, ripe for exploiting. Wise leaders must find a way to deal with a problem that, if ignored, is sure to create another painful economic crisis. Page Printed from: realclearpolitics.com at March 23, 2010 - 07:18:44 PM CDT