Rob Astorino

The GOP Westchester County Executive wants to run for Governor of NY State.  It will be interesting to see how his strategy of getting lots of votes upstate works.  He is pro-fracking.  I happen to be also, but will not vote for him because I cannot vote for any Republican until they become more balanced in their approach to just about everything.

The problem with his strategy is many of the rural Republican voters are NIMBY's.  They don't want a gas pipeline built along Interstate 88 and they don't want fracking.  You can frack all you want, but you need a pipeline to take the gas away to the market where it will be used.

So Mr. Astorino will have to be both pro-Constellation pipeline and pro-fracking.  Again, I support both of these activities, but I don't believe the upstate NIMBY voters will.  So I think Mr. Astorino is doomed to remain Westchester County Executive.

This is the Result of 24 Hour News/Talk Media

Face it, I am a normal person, very attuned to the issues of the world, and I can only find stuff to write/talk about for 30 minutes a few days a month.  What in the world can you do to fill up 24 hours day after day?

It appears that I missed the sensitivity of Russia to Nato's expansion east.  Of course, I knew that they were unhappy whenever this started 8 or 10 or ? years ago.  But I didn't know that this was a reason for the quick war in Georgia (the country not the state) in 2008.  So you would have thought the EU would have shown a little bit of sensitivty when trying to rescue the Ukraine financially.  Of course, the reason I didn't short the Ukraine was the fact that I thought they would agree to an IMF program and conduct sensible economic policies that would have stabilized the economy.  Instead, Yanakovich  (sp?) was so corrupt and crooked that he turned that down in favor of a Russia financial rescue that allowed the unstable policy mix to continue.  And we see where that got him?  A dacha near Moscow supported with money in Cyprus no doubt.  And it got the Ukraine and the world in the current situation.

But I really wanted to reference Thomas Friedman's column this morning.  He deserves the big bucks for being able to write coherent insightful columns like this on a regular basis.

Link to Friedman's column


And I love his 1st paragraph because it inspired by title and introductory paragraph so I copy it below.

"Just as we’ve turned the coverage of politics into sports, we’re doing the same with geopolitics. There is much nonsense being written about how Vladimir Putin showed how he is “tougher” than Barack Obama and how Obama now needs to demonstrate his manhood. This is how great powers get drawn into the politics of small tribes and end up in great wars that end badly for everyone. We vastly exaggerate Putin’s strength — so does he — and we vastly underestimate our own strength, and ability to weaken him through nonmilitary means."

Republican Criticism of President Obama Has No Consistency

in its substantive basis.  They just simply hate him for reasons they cannot articulate.  I think it is desperation at the potential for him to nominate a majority liberal leaning number to the Supreme Court, but that is certainly nothing the President controls and will be what will be.

Dana Milbank nails a discussion of whether President Obama is a tyrant or without any power as the Republicans describe him.  Basically, he shows all the GOP comments are just simply hot air venting.  We have about as much possibility of controlling events in Crimea as the Russians do of controlling events in Guantanamo Bay.

Link to Dana Milbank Column

Wow, I had no idea that the GOP was trying to change the Constitution!

Like many, I was somewhat relieved that Arizona government decided to let some things just be between individuals and not necessarily be hard coded into legislation.  If someone didn't want to take my wedding pictures, I would just hire someone else.  I must admit I was married at the Chicago City Hall by a judge who believed in ghosts, but that is whole other story.

Tom Egan this morning lays out the basic tenant of the constitution that the Republican party is working to overturn.  Never in the history of this country has religion been allowed to dictate government law.  The constitution protects freedom of religion as defined by freedom of worship limited by adherence to law.

So Mormon's cannot have 10 wives, legally.  Religion cannot sanction keeping women or men prisoners who want to leave the sect.  That is kidnapping.

But that is what is happening in this never ending war on ObamaCare.  Government passed a law saying insurance had to provided certain things.  Now, elements of the GOP are saying this violates Freedom of Religion.  In essence, Religion will trump government legislation.  This has never been what the Constitution meant by Freedom of Religion.  Worship was constrained to houses of worship and private homes; not including places of work.

Link to Tom Egan article that opened my eyes to this

If the Supreme Court upholds this, it will be opening up a can of worms similar to what "Stand Your Ground" has done.  All you have to do is believe something and you can violate a law.  I shudder at what "Stand Your Ground" has done.  It means any gang banger can shoot another gang banger because he fears for his life.  The only way to convict him is to hope he shoots an innocent victim.

I will not travel to Florida or any other state with a "Stand Your Ground" law.  Innocent people are too at risk of being shot by an individual who is naturally fearful, which is every human being in existence.

Let's Change the Focus of Debate

Since 2001, the partisan debate has been all about the propriety of neo-con desires to wage war to protect U.S. interests, tax cutter's desire to starve the government of funding (although why did Bush II push through Medicare Pharmacy benefits if that is what he really wanted?), and a general quiet push back on providing services to the poor.

It is the last point that I believe is all tied up in the absolute high level of hatred toward President Obama by the Republicans.  I don't think the Democrats hated George Bush II with the same level of veracity.  And it can't really be Obamacare because it's construct is what the Republicans want to use to fix Medicare.  So what is going on in the Tea Party and the anti-tax bastion's of GOP supporting 1%'s?

The one fundamental idea that RedStateVT and I agree 100% on is the responsibility of any individual to live their life in a traditionally responsible manner.  But there is also a tradition in this country of using the power of large numbers to create a safety net for the benefit of all within a capitalist construction.  Most other high income countries use a socialist construct for the safety net.  And it is very clear that even within the GOP today, there is support for the safety net.  No Tea Partier supports ending the Medicare that pays for their relatives diabetes treatments.

But when Mayor Bloomberg had the policy of limiting the size of sugary drinks that are available in one order (you could still have 2 order's if you really wanted that much), he was completely ridiculed by many on the hard right for nanny state leanings.

So, what we have in this country is the following:  the hard right hates the liberals for wanting a nanny state and not promoting individual responsibility in all things economic; while the hard left hates the conservatives for not recognizing that the affects of income inequality are too real while they continue to advocate starving the beast now that the $1.0 trillion plus bill for the borrowed War on Terror is effecting other government services.

Being able to be personally responsible is facilitated by the social safety net.  But as we have seen in the not too distant past, if the social safety net does not require people to take on personal responsibility as time passes, then they become wards of the state.   Policies must discourage becoming a ward of the state.

It really is a shame that we are not having serious debate over where and how we should draw the line on personal responsibility.  That used to be the partisan debate.  Universal health insurance would be cheaper, but there is a potentially unmanageable economic issue with all the people who work at private health insurance companies and these private insurance companies are managing about 10% of medicare recipients insurance.  Also, Heritage Foundation/RomneyCare/ObamaCare was designed to keep the private insurance system viable and keeping the HeathCare system in the private market while trying to control costs.  Critical to keeping the cost of health insurance affordable for all is the personal responsibility for everyone to buy health insurance because everyone needs health care with unpredictable timing.  That is what insurance is all about.

The law of large numbers is what all entitlements are all about.  And entitlements need constant monitoring to make sure there is a balance between benefits and funding.  Right now there is not, but hatred of President Obama prevents a Grand Bargain from occurring.

So I think the President should change the focus of the debate from where it has been to a discussion of where lines of personal responsibility should be placed.  Then maybe we can move things forward with the majority of voters behind the politicians of both parties who decided to lead on this critical issue.

I thank Nicholas Kristof for my inspiration this morning.  Here is his column:

Link Kristoff column on Personal Responsibility

And here is an editorial on how politicians of both parties refuse to lead us in a productive manner.

Fear Mongering on Medicare


Lastly, the Ukraine.  I actually thought there would be a vote and Crimea would vote to rejoin Russia.  I think the Ukrainian government would have accepted that easily.  However, Putin couldn't wait.  I think Putin may be loosing his marbles and at the very least, he certainly has an insatiable appetite for power.  And there is nothing the U.S. can really do except work with the EU to boot Russia out of the G8.

Very Funny Stupid Human Trick

It will take some patience, but I laughed loudly both the 1st time Thursday night and today re-watching it.  Juggling and eating a hot dog, the bun, and mustard.


Go Forward to Minute 20 and wait for the Ad's to pass

The Health Care Debate in the U.S.A.

I notice that I have many readers outside the U.S.  I imagine it is very difficult to understand our health care debate, which is never ending, despite ObamaCare being developed by the Heritage Foundation, a Republican think tank and the GOP plan to use the exact same model to reform Medicare.  You would think the Republicans would be happy to have a private sector solution to an area that is sinking both government finances and the personal finances of many individual families.  All the while we have many uninsured people going untreated until they show up in the emergency room and get service for free.  Healthcare expense equals 20% of U.S. GDP.  Something had to be done and Heritage Foundation/RomneyCare/ObamaCare is what we got.  It is not perfect, but when you are reforming 20% of GDP there are bound to be problems that need to be fixed.  But returning to the prior status quo is totally irresponsible if you are a fiscally conservative.

So, if you are wondering what the GOP thinks, I post the following column written by a Cynthia Tucker on Yahoo News.

During a Republican primary debate in the last presidential election cycle, there was a dispiriting moment in which tea party audience members cheered at the idea that a comatose uninsured American -- unable to afford health insurance -- would be left to die. That infamous outburst, among others, has prompted GOP bigwigs to try to cut back on primary season debates, hoping to limit appearances that might expose the party's baser impulses.

But that mean-spirited and contemptuous attitude toward the sick is alive and well in the Grand Old Party, as its maniacal (and futile) resistance to Obamacare has made clear. Now, one Republican politician is pushing that callousness to new lows: He wants to bar the uninsured from hospital emergency rooms.

Last week, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal criticized a decades-old federal law that requires all hospitals that receive Medicare funds and have emergency facilities -- and that's most -- to treat any patient who walks in needing care, regardless of his ability to pay. "It came as a result of bad facts," Deal said, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "And we have a saying that bad facts make bad law."

Deal says that many people use emergency rooms unnecessarily, and those patients inflate health care costs. He is factually correct. But there are other facts that undercut his arguments and reveal his hypocrisy.

First off, Deal is among those red-state Republicans who have vociferously opposed the Affordable Care Act, which makes health insurance available to hundreds of thousands of people who couldn't otherwise afford it. If more people had health insurance policies that paid for doctors' visits, fewer would use emergency rooms for routine complaints.

Second, Deal, like many Republican governors, has refused the Medicaid expansion made possible by Obamacare, even though the federal government would pick up 100 percent of the cost for the first three years and 90 percent until the year 2022. That expansion is the best chance many Georgians without means have for getting health insurance.

So, to sum up, Deal hates Obamacare and refuses its Medicaid expansion, which would keep the working poor out of emergency rooms. In addition, he wants to deny them access to emergency rooms unless they can pay. Really, governor? Don't you insist that your values are "pro-life"?

It's no wonder that GOP strategists shuddered when audience members responded so cruelly during the CNN/Tea Party Express debate in September 2011. It portrays the party as pitiless -- a reputation unlikely to attract a majority of voters.

Quiet as it's kept, most Americans support keeping Obamacare, despite the relentless pounding it has taken from Republicans. (And despite a website rollout that was infuriatingly incompetent.) A new poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 56 percent of Americans favor keeping it in place, while just 31 percent want to repeal it. (Twelve percent want to replace it with a GOP plan.)

That's likely because most voters, no matter their reservations about Obamacare, know that the Republican Party has no good solution for the millions of Americans who work every day but still don't earn enough money to buy a health care plan. Americans have struggled with the nation's dysfunctional health care "system," and they know it's overdue for an overhaul.

Meanwhile, as the mid-term elections draw closer, the GOP struggles to come up with a plan that pretends to overhaul the health care system. Looking to avoid being painted as mere obstructions, House Republican honchos are working to draw their caucus together behind a bill that would replace Obamacare with a workable alternative.

But the most sincere plan so far -- one offered by Sens. Richard Burr, R-N.C., Tom Coburn, R-Okla. and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah -- would probably offer policies too skimpy to do any good once a policy-holder gets sick.

Besides, even that replacement idea seems unlikely to draw broad support among the far-right tea partiers, who believe that allowing the uninsured poor to die is the appropriate government response to the health care crisis.

That's a hulking bit of hypocrisy for a party that advertises itself as "pro-life." Deal's latest proposal is one more reminder of how little that label means.