A Useful Comparison

And before you go thinking I'm trying to bankrupt America and destroy our economy with all my progressive programs, keep this NYTimes feature in mind.

On an annual basis...

Universal health insurance + universal preschool + implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations + another $55 billion in spending money = 1 Iraq War.

Just remember that.

Cowboys on a Spaceship

I don't know why David Brooks seems to keep giving me good material, but this week he takes on income inequality ($). His political conclusion?

The Democratic Party is now divided between moderates — who emphasize individual responsibility and education to ameliorate inequality — and progressive populists, who advocate an activist state that will protect people from forces beyond their control. Given the deep forces in American history, the centrists will almost certainly win out.

According to Brooks, America, despite its enormous wealth and income gaps, is still so devoted to meritocracy and individualism that it will refuse to accept social welfarist policies. Perhaps. Let me tell a story, however.

For an environmental law class, I once read an author (I'll post the citation when I find it) who talked about the two types of people/societies: the Cowboy and the Spaceman. The Cowboy faces a frontier with limitless resources. He only cares about procedural equality - equality of opportunity; as long as he can find a patch of land as big as his neighbor's, he's happy. And if he uses up all his resources quickly, no matter - go west, young man!

The Spaceman, on the other hand, views his world as an astronaut would - a world of limited space and resources. He cares about substantive equality - if any person takes too much, it means less for everyone else. He conserves his resources.

America, obviously, is a nation of Cowboys - a fact displayed nowhere better than in the demeanor of our President. Unfortunately, many of us have not yet come to grips with the closing of the frontier. We are acting like cowboys on a spaceship. If America believes what Brooks says it does, then it is all part of the same mindset that thinks it's okay to drive SUVs and thinks they deserve tax cuts because, as W would say, "it's their money."

While the American dream is still certainly possible, it is, in many ways, an illusion. Education (or whatever our country passes for education) and personal responsibility are not always enough for success. I do not, as Brooks would say, "advocate an activist state that will protect people from forces beyond their control." No, I advocate an activist state that will prevent people from the runaway capitalist cowboys whose definition of compassion includes giving millionaires tax breaks and paying employees too little to afford health care while public schools are (quite literally) falling apart.

Breaking News: Under Bush Tax Cuts Bloated Plutocrats Become More Bloated!

Recently, I discussed the startling income inequality in the U.S.

Well, guess what, a new report shows that the Bush tax cuts have had the effect of exacerbating that inequality. Look at the NYTimes editorial board's take on it here.

And what really makes me sick is...

Though in my previous post I expressed my support for a government-controlled universal health insurance system and pointed at other countries' lower health care costs, I felt I should clarify that I do not believe our current system is entirely to blame for high costs. In great part, I feel we ourselves are.

Read this great piece at the NYTimes about Americans' mania with being diagnosed with any disorder they can come up with. I would imagine that few Europeans find themselves diagnosed with "Restless Leg Syndrome." I doubt that 4 in 10 children in other industrialized nations are on chronic perscription meds. Nor do I believe that doctors in most other nations order every test possible because the alternative is likely a lawsuit.

It's a classic American problem. We want every medicine, every test, every diagnosis we can get our hands on, and then we complain that health care costs are too high. I remember a commercial for Tums a few years back, in which a man eats two chili dogs in 30 seconds and then complains about his heartburn. If you don't want heartburn, I would say there's a very easy solution.

I'm not sure exactly what the policy implications of this little rant are. But it's something I think is useful to keep in mind.

A culture of life - but one that actually cares about life

Check out Anna Bernasek's vision for universal health insurance over at the NYTimes. Per capita, Americans pay double what other industrialized nations pay on health care. "At the same time, life expectancy in the United States, a broad measure of health, was slightly lower than it was in those other countries in 2004, the latest year for which complete figures are available. And the United States had a higher rate of infant mortality." Bernasek also includes some theories as to why this might be so.

Wait? You mean countries that use government-run health insurance are more efficient than our private system? Say it ain't so! And, by the way, the 1 in 6 Americans who don't have health insurance probably wouldn't worry about the perils of big government if it gave them a chance to stay healthy. Certainly the 8 million children in this country who don't have access to proper health care wouldn't mind.

Much to my delight, John Edwards (who is now officially running for President) seems intent on putting universal health insurance on the table on a national scale.

The NYTimes editorial board seems to be on my side on this one: "Depriving children of adequate health care while giving the rich tax benefits that were intended for average Americans is flat-out wrong." While I'm at it, here's Paul Krugman's take on how to really fight poverty.

Constitution? What's that?

You know, I had thought warrantless wiretapping was about as illegal an action as a sitting President could condone, but this is ridiculous.

"The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of [HR 6407], which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances."

I mean, I know our President probably doesn't have much more than two neurons connected by a spirochete inside that head of his, but does he really think executive powers let him rip up the Constitution?

May I turn your attention to the 4th Amendment? "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...." Granted, I'm no expect in Constitutional Law (yet), but I would imagine mail falls under the category of "papers and effects."

Sigh. Let's hope the Democrats give him hell over this one. I'm not holding my breath though...