Health Care At Last?

Well, with the President giving at least some boost to expanded health care coverage for Americans, will we actually see some accomplishment this time? I think so. There is still a fairly wide gap in what the President is proposing and where many folks in Congress and in the public at large stand on the issue. At least Mr. Bush is offering a starting point on a complex issue. Some leaders in his own party are far ahead of him, as Romney in Massachusetts and Schwartzenegger in California have already embraced plans for health care.

I tend to agree that some parts of Bush's plan are "dead on arrival" in Congress, like the overall idea of having all individuals "purchase" private insurance plans. If you're at least fairly well off financially, that's probably something you already have purchased, or contribute a percentage to the premium to through employer sponsored health care. If you're fairly poor, you are probably covered by Medicaid. If you're struggling financially, for whatever reason, you probably aren't covered, and the idea that you will run out and purchase private insurance because of a tax credit, is unlikely. You still have to have the money to do so. Or, if you have no insurance and you have some pre-existing condition, it's also unlikely that you'll get insurance, unless you're a very good liar.

The government has to be involved in this whole thing somehow, in order to guarantee coverage for everyone. It will cost money and it will require additional taxes of some kind. Supporters need to acknowledge this right up front. Americans will accept extra costs when they see a valued benefit. And I'm not saying that this program, whatever it is that develops, has to be totally a government program, as it undoubtedly should have some private elements in it to keep it viable and cost contained. How we can do that is going to be the test for the President and the leaders of both political parties.

Bush and Public Opinion

The President seems to have little sympathy for public opinion. Over the years, we've seen polltakers embarrassed by never seeing the inauguration of President Thomas Dewey or the popularity of "New" Coke. We all have heard that old saying about political polls, "The only poll that counts is the one on election day." Well, this president doesn't much care about that poll, either. There has always been a debate about how much a leader should follow what the public is saying, but if you keep marching in the opposite direction of the public, you're apt to get yourself into (deeper) trouble. For one thing, Bush has what to my mind is an almost insurmountable credibility problem over Iraq. The public, including many Republicans, will not trust his judgment on Iraq, whatever he proposes.

Whether you like him or dislike him, he is the only president we've got for two more years, and he needs to have some functionality for the sake of the country.

What Will Happen To Greater Cleveland?

Most of us are aware that the Greater Cleveland area has been in decline for decades. The area, once a bulwark of industry, had seen its industries slowly erode. Each recession brought layoffs. Each recovery brought rehiring, though often with fewer workers than before the recession, but the workers still made decent wages and had good benefits. The thing was, however, the area still had a relatively strong industrial base AND a strong corporate headquarters base, many in the downtown area. I remember a number of years ago, in one of campaigns to sell Cleveland to the rest of the country, it was publicized that Cleveland was home to the third largest number of Fortune 500 headquarters, and that it also had a fair percentage of the largest financial institutions on the Fortune list. Much of this came as a surprise to many people who lived here. So, maybe Cleveland was “the best kept secret,” as one of the slogans proclaimed, even to its own residents. All of this came at a time, the 1980s, when Cleveland seemed to be moving forward, and the community had a sense of pride and an attitude that it could accomplish things. The “Light Up Cleveland” nights for Monday Night Football showed the City in a glow that reflected the pride felt by many Greater Clevelanders.

Today, I shudder to think what might happen to this community. There seems to be no one able to put out a “call to arms,” to rally the community. I don’t want to bash our elected officials too much, as I think we have many office holders who are well intentioned, but they aren’t leaders. We also need to hear the stark truth about how bad the situation is, and how bad it could become. All you have to do is look around: businesses closing, businesses moving out, declining population, lower wages and benefits, if you’re lucky to have benefits. We can’t have many of those Fortune 500 headquarters here anymore, nor can we have many of the top financial institutions, either. The inner city is in serious decline, and poverty is about the only element that is in ascendance. Poverty doesn’t recognize city boundaries, and it has leapt with vigor into the suburbs. As cited by the Plain Dealer over the past year, food pantries are now not only in many suburbs, but they are visited by substantial numbers of residents seeking help. A number of years ago, such stories were a thing limited to Cleveland proper. Further, I drove down Superior Avenue at 4:30 p.m. recently, and thought for sure that I'd regret getting stuck in rush hour traffic, only to find that it was a breeze getting to the Detroit-Superior Bridge, and that there weren’t even many people waiting for buses. I lived in Downtown for years, and at that time of day, this town was alive with people rushing to the parking garages or to catch the next bus or Rapid home, and the traffic was always heavy.

It would seem to me that everything we treasure in this community is now open to demise. Make no mistake about it, we are in trouble here! The community was stunned by Modell’s treachery in the mid 1990s, but even with a new Cleveland Browns team and a new multi-million dollar stadium, the team’s embarrassing performance since its return has left even many diehard fans turned off. Let’s not forget, the team moved once, and if it moves again, I would have to believe that it would not return. The Indians have also been floundering around for a number of years. Declining attendance brings to mind the many years when the team threatened to leave town. The most disturbing thing was the poor attendance during the late run by the Indians in the 2005 season. It used to be said that if the Indians played well, the fans would come out, but that saying, just like the BP offices in the BP Building, is empty. Of course, with the tremendous cost of attending ANY professional sport’s event, average folks are lucky if they can afford to take their family to see a game or two per season, without mortgaging the homestead, which is difficult these days, since we have the highest foreclosure rate in the nation, if I understand it right. The Cavaliers have certainly been the exception, and they have given our forlorn town something of a morale boost. I don’t want to sound the “party pooper,” but if ANYTHING happens to LeBron… well you know the answer.

With so many corporate headquarters gone, money for many charities has also left town. As I mentioned above, everything here is in danger, and that includes the renowned Cleveland Orchestra, as well as the museums. I’m not saying that any of these things WILL happen in the next two or three weeks, but unfortunately, they COULD happen in the next few years or so, and we need to start thinking about how we stop the bleeding here. Some will no doubt say that I’m overreacting, and that while these things COULD happen, we COULD also have two weeks in January with temperatures in the 40s and 50s. Oh, we just did.

Will We Be Bogged Down on Trade?

Just some brief thoughts about trade, and I won’t just be picking on George Bush. I just wonder, now that we’re in all of these trade agreements, how do we alter or scrap them?

Just to refresh memories, it was Clinton-Gore that pushed through some of the big trade agreements. Remember the debate between Vice President Al Gore and businessman and sometimes candidate Ross Perot? While many Republicans tended to favor the trade agreements, not everyone was in lockstep, as Pat Buchanan was probably the most prominent Republican to oppose these agreements. Democrats were a mixture of support, and vociferous opposition, with, as I recall, less than half of congressional Democrats supporting the administration’s trade policies.

Not long after Bush took office, the American steel industry, suffering terrible losses since the 1990s, and with several companies in bankruptcy, asked for help from Congress and the Bush Administration to curtail low cost foreign steel imports. In a fairly amazing development, the Administration responded with duties on many types of steel and steel products, with the duties scheduled to last for three years. I’m sure the Administration also had the State Department try to smooth over ruffled feathers in the countries affected by this change in policy. Other countries growled, but essentially that was all they did, at least at first.

I don’t remember every detail, but if memory serves me right, by World Trade Organization “rules,” the Administration had to review it’s policy every so many months. Each time a “review” was in the offing, other countries turned up the rhetoric, with Russia being the most vocal. The Administration gradually lifted the duties on certain small specialty steel imports, but kept the duties on the vast majority of imported steel. By the halfway point in the policy, other countries, but Russia in particular had turned up the heat, threatening retaliation against American products coming into their respective nations. American businesses that were selling their products to these countries began to complain that they would be severely hurt, if trade duties were placed on their goods. Eventually, the Administration declared the policy a success and cancelled the remaining import duties. By that time, the American steel industry had recovered somewhat.

The question is, now that Democrats have control of Congress, will they be able to curtail the loss of American jobs, principally in manufacturing, to other countries. To do so will require changes to trade agreements. The problem is, we’re knee deep in trade agreements, and other countries are not going to just stand by and accept these changes without threatening or actually enacting retaliation against the United States.

In 1930, the Congress passed higher tariffs on a number of imported products. President Hoover was inclined to veto the legislation, but reluctantly signed it. This prompted retaliation against American products, and some economists over the years have felt that this legislation turned an economic recession into a depression. (Well, not just any old depression, but THE Depression.)

I don’t like what has happened to many American jobs. Not everyone is cut out to be a nuclear scientist or a computer whiz. Having grown up in a blue collar neighborhood, I have tremendous respect for people who earn a living by the sweat of their brow and the strength of their back. American unions set standards for working people, even if many working people did not belong to a union. Many working class people were able to earn enough and have enough job benefits to live the dream of owning their own homes and cars, and of having medical care for themselves and their families. It seems that some in America have now totally forgotten these folks. We’re creating an entirely new underclass, in my opinion. The question is, are we so entwined in trade agreements that no matter what we do, we will create serious problems?

Democrats and the Iraq War

Democrats have now taken formal control of both houses of Congress, so what might happen? Some people are pressing for a strong commitment from Democrats to use every possible means to bring about a withdrawal from Iraq. Other folks want Democrats to help on economic issues; others want action on social issues, including federal dollars for stem cell research. I’m sure there is a certain percentage of Americans who want all of these things, but more than likely, many of us have our own agendas somewhere within the above parameters.

I think most would agree that the most difficult issue is Iraq. So what will Democrats do? My “guess” is, most Democrats in Congress will do what they did during the election campaign; that is, they will try to stay away from articulating a clear policy, but they will say that, unlike the previous Republican-led Congress, Democrats are now providing “oversight.” To be quite honest, I’m sure many Democrats are a bit scared of this issue, and not without reason. They have seen an American president and his political party ride a tremendous wave of approval over Iraq, only to experience a gradual, but steady decline in public support for the war, culminating in large losses in the midterm elections, and a president with an approval rating hovering around the average January daily high temperature in Juneau, Alaska.

As all of us know, the situation is just a MESS! The responsibility for Iraq rests with the Bush Administration and Republicans, and Democrats want very much to keep it right there. Yes, many Democrats voted FOR the authorization to invade Iraq, in spite of their now contorted explanations of their votes, but I think the public focus is on the Administration, and correctly so. The problem for Democrats is, however, now they control the Congress, and that means they share power, aka “responsibility.” If you have watched any of the political talk shows in the last day or so, you’ve probably seen many, but not all, Democratic congressional people and strategists trying mightily to stay away from any specific commitments about an Iraq policy. One Democratic strategist noted that, generally speaking, Democrats really never promised anything specific about Iraq during the election campaign. This is kind of where the American public really is. There are strong supporters of the Adminisration and strong supporters for withdrawal, but the large middle ground of Americans is really uncertain what to do about Iraq. The problem for Democrats is, “if” they embrace a “withdrawal policy,” and that policy is enacted, they then will be tied to that policy, just as Bush and Republicans have been tied to the current policy. If a withdrawal policy works, Democrats will certainly receive the accolades of a grateful nation. If the policy fails, and, for instance, the Iraq religious-ethnic civil war boils over to other countries in the Middle East, and Islamic extremists gain a major presence in Iraq and perhaps other countries, and oil goes to $150 a barrel… well, you get the idea.

Just to guess further, and we’ll soon find out on this, I think Democrats may well let Bush go ahead with a “surge,” although they will publicly criticize the policy. If the “surge” fails to stabilize the situation, and personally, I think it will fail, Democrats will then say, “Look, we didn’t like this ‘surge’ plan, but we let the President have his way, and now look what has happened.” The only major alternative for Democrats is to withhold funding in some part for Iraq, but that certainly will open them up to criticism that they are endangering our military, and even the already shaky situation in the region.

I’m not sure the media will let the Democrats get away with much of the above scenario, especially now that Democrats have real power, if the situation even develops anywhere near as I’ve speculated above.

Meanwhile, with the Iraq debate going on, Democrats will try to keep a base of support by passing a minimum wage increase, support for stem cell research, changing some tax breaks for oil companies, and other items that are generally popular with the public, and that’s not a bad idea. In my mind, the Iraq War opened the Republicans to severe criticism, but many of these other issues really combined to bring the Republicans down in the past election. According to the television talk shows, the Democrat’s “100 Hour Agenda” never even mentions Iraq, but that issue will likely be what decides the fate of both parties in 2008.