Advocacy Consultant
Forty years ago the world watched network news special reports with bated breath as Neil Armstrong took the first human step on another world. How might that coverage look today? Slate thinks they have an idea of how the space age might collide with the age of the 24-hour news cycle:
(My favorite part comes about 45 seconds in, when Anderson Cooper puts up the Twitter chatter on the moon landing – posts include “Suck it, China!” and “Michael Jackson RIP.”)
Today is, of course, the 40th anniversary of the small step for a man that was a giant leap for mankind. Neil Armstrong doesn’t make many pulic appearances anymore, but Buzz Aldrin, the second man on the moon/NASA’s Garfunkle, has remained in the public eye. And thank goodness – no one handles the moon conspiracy theorists quite like him:
The Independence Institute is taking on Obamacare with this video, which highlights the need for individual choice in health care and has someone getting hit by a bus:
In debating Energy Policy with the head of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Sen. Barbara Boxer had a foolproof argument: other black people like the policy we’re discussing. (I caught it on StixBlog.)
Health care reform is this week’s topic in Your Nation’s Capital. Last week, there were rumors of a second stimulus package to answer flagging unemployment numbers. The Obama Administration has responded to problem after problem with a steady drumbeat calling for new and expanded government programs. Inaction is not an option, our President has said.
What isn’t said is who is doing that something – and probably with good reason.
This week, NASA finally admitted that it had taped over the original recordings of the Moon landing. This is not my kid brothers taping over my old VHS recordings of the A-Team with episodes of The Real Ghostbusters. This is the definitive video record of man’s first step on the surface of anything other than Earth. It’s a key moment in the history of our nation and, more importantly, our species. It’s a giant leap for mankind.
This is what passes for rocket science in Washington, D.C. – and if these are the smart kids, who’s administering TARP funds and deciding who gets to be first in line at the doctor?
The Washington Times’s Amanda Carpenter reports that GM is encouraging its remaining dealers to contact their Members of Congress. The message: oppose legislation which would re-open dealerships which have closed as part of the bailout.
Obviously, anyone and everyone should have the right to write their Congressman; and in politics, nothing moves unless it’s pushed, so the idea that GM leadership was encouraging its employees to contact elected leaders makes sense. But GM isn’t just any big company, it’s a company that owes its current existence to the Obama Administration and an infusion of public money.
The bailout/sale of GM to the government this spring included the administration forcing out longtime CEO Rick Wagoner and replacing him with someone who promised to “learn about cars.” Perhaps it should not be surprising that an Obama-administration-owned GM has proved to be better at lobbying than making cars.
The battle lines on health care reform are pretty clear, but what isn’t as clear is what each side stands for. Both Democrats and Republicans have been talking about competing ideas, but the overarching debate is actually one about governing philosophy – and polls still show that the public is somewhat skeptical of the Democrat ideology.
The Democrats’ plan includes a national insurance plan – the now-famous “public option,” a cheaper version of every other insurance plan that somehow, our leaders assure us, won’t put those other insurance companies out of business. The Republicans’ plan involves driving down costs by limiting liability reform, but there’s a more interesting tidbit buried deep down in their discussion: the idea of each person buying their own insurance, made easier by tax incentives.
Unfortunately, the GOP isn’t trying to change the terms of the debate – something they desperately need to do. Those who seem to support the Obama plan are helping a bit. A New York Times Magazine article makes a case in favor of public health care rationing (a concept even the administration avoids like a plague which can’t be treated by an in-network provider) and in doing so, uses the following graphic to make their point:
It’s a valid question, and one the “public option” will have to answer – maybe not during the legislative process, but certainly when put into practice. The first participant in the ABC Obama Health Care infomercial asked a similar question; the President sidestepped and did not answer.
This is a powerful strike against Obamacare, and one Republicans can exploit. But eventually, bashing health care reform proposals will not help the GOP win elections. The other side must advance their own brand of health care reform – something completely different, although the seeds are, as aforementioned, already planted.
Our health care system as it currently exists is tied to employment – much like other benefits, such as a retirement pension, have been for decades. If you work in the same job for a long period of time, that’s good. But as the American worker becomes ever more likely to switch jobs several times during a career, the employer-based model is simply not as effective. We no longer live in a company where people get jobs out of high school or college, work for fifty years, and get a pension and a gold watch upon retirement.
A system which promotes portable, individually-purchased health care and health insurance would not only help expand people’s control over their health care, it would drive costs down. Current health insurance costs are often inflated by the existence of insurance; care for uninsured patients currently costs less than care for insured patients.
No election was ever won on defense, and Republicans – and, for that matter, conservatives – can ill afford to let their opponents draw the battle lines. In fact has already started, with President Obama claiming the opponents of his plan are “defending the status quo.” As long as this message resonates unanswered, Obama can continue to claim the middle ground while painting his opponents as reactionary forces dug in to withstand change. Republicans must make their own case that their proactive solutions are better than the opponents.
Read this, then let’s talk about why it’s funny:
“The Board shall establish and maintain…a user-friendly, public-facing website to foster greater accountability and transparency in the use of covered funds. The website…shall be a portal or gateway to key information relating to the Act and provide connections to other government websites with related information.” — American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Here’s the punchline: The Obama Administration’s Recovery.gov website will cost you and me $18 million to redesign – not design, but re-design. In fairness, the redesign itself costs only $9.5 million, with $8.5 million set aside for site upkeep over the next five years (a little over $14,000 per month).
No one can figure out how the company that received the contract received the contract – according to TechPresident, no government entity knows.
The most expensive website design project I’ve ever led cost $60,000 – and that was because the vendor I worked with gave me a few breaks. But the point is that I know people who could easily design and build a nice looking website that would do all that Recovery.gov needs to do for less than a $1 million, and maybe for less than half that. It’s the technological equivalent of the famed $500 hammers used by the Pentagon: it simply doesn’t make sense. Given the expense, transparency in the bidding process is that much more important.
America’s Hometown Team, the Washington Nationals, today fired their manager.
It’s funny to watch sports teams which adopt the culture of the city in which they play. The New York Yankees demand championship-level success each year the same ways the leaders of the business community would push for market share (or at least the way they used to). The Pittsburgh Steelers play physical, hard-nosed football much the blue-collar work of their namesakes, the steelworkers who literally built that city. Detroit Pistons games sometimes end up in violence and the Detroit Lions are the Edsel of professional sports. The 2007 New England Patriots were cocky and overconfident in their quest for a 19-win season like some dude named Sully from Southie who thinks Smithwick is to him what spinach is to Popeye.
(Before anyone complains, spend a couple years in the dorms at UMass, then let’s talk.)
Similarly, the Nationals resemble the inside-the-beltway mentality. After drifting along without a discernible plan for five years, the team found a scapegoat and fired the man in charge. (That’s nothing special – baseball managers get axed all the time, even during the season, and going 26-61 is no way to keep a job.) But Acta’s firing comes after years of personnel decisions coming from a front office which mirrored the bureaucracy in the buildings surrounding it. At its best, Nationals leaders have been incompetent; at their worst, they have been crooked and corrupt. Not only were the players on the field bad, but there was never a clear plan for developing a winning team.
Washington DC is not a sports town, but it is a frontrunning town, so a winning Nats team here and there would cause some local buzz – and fill some of those empty seats I keep seeing when I make it out to what is a nice and conveniently located ballpark. But like their bureacratic neighbors, the Nats are content with showing up for 81 home games with a roster of warm bodies – in other words, doing the absolute minimum. And except for a handful of scapegoats who had to pay the piper after four years, there has been little chance of getting fired. If only we all had such job security.
I’m not saying Acta is a genius, but he is certainly deserving of another chance – hopefully for him, with a team which is serious about winning.
Marion Barry’s defenders in his latest flap are accusing the Washington City Paper of racism. The free weekly fronted their coverage of Barry’s latest public embarassment with a quote his former girlfriend apparently left on his voicemail: “You put me out in Denver ’cause I wouldn’t [perform a specific sex act which, if I wrote it, might get my blog flagged as ‘not safe for work’].”
It’s a legitimate question for people in neighborhoods to wonder why the City Paper – which again, is free and readily accessibly to kids – should use such vulgar language. Barry and his minions have no beef. They may complain that a white politician would not be covered the same way – as if late night talk show hosts hadn’t chewed up and spit out John Edwards, Mark Sanford, Bill Clinton, etc. (Also: other politicians who don’t get this kind of coverage include the ones that don’t kick their mistresses out of hotel rooms for refusing to perform sex acts.)
If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, apparently racism is a close second-to-last. Those who would cry racism in this case forget that Barry’s latest public embarrassment is just that – his latest, and not his only, public embarassment.
It should be noted that charges that Barry was stalking his former girlfriend were dropped, and that the legal side of the dispute appears to be an overreaction to a private situation. Given this, I was a little surprised that Barry didn’t resort to his tried and true defense when it comes to girlfriends who get him into hot water with the law.
Jim Eltringham 