A Healthcare Anecdote

My son recently had a gallbladder attack.  Paramedics took him to the emergency room and they kept him for four nights for testing, surgery and recovery.

If you wonder why insurance is unaffordable and the government is going broke, take a look at this bill.

The first question has to be why these guys dare to charge so much more than what the industry looks at as standard fees.  And make no mistake, the uninsured working poor would be billed the $48K and the hospital would demand payment.  I think we can assume that Medicare pays even less than the insurance companies and Medicaid pay even less again.

The amount the hospital was paid breaks down like this:

 What’s wrong with that picture?  Wouldn’t you love to know what the hospital paid its suppliers out of that almost $9K?  Note that the surgeon got less than $1,000 – some part of his fee went for the cholangiogram [x-ray] – while the anesthesiologist got the full $1,000.  That has to be all about the tort system, settlements and insurance costs.  Other hospital doctors racked up $600 in fees. 

The hospital charges make the doctors look good but consider what is really being charged.  If we pay a doctor $250,000 a year, that means she needs to earn $125 an hour for a 40 hour week and 50 weeks a year – surprising isn’t it considering all the plumbers, lawyers and mechanics charging so much more per hour?  Anyway, at that rate, the anesthesiologist charged for 8 hours – the surgery lasted an hour and a half.  I know there was prep but …  Now compare what the doctors charged to what the hospital is charging.  It is hospitals that are truly out of control.

That the patient had to ante up $3K for what is obviously a rare or catastrophic event is good and bad.  The bad is that insurance ought to cover the entirety of an event such as this – that’s the purpose of insurance.  The good is that in this area and others, we all need to become far more aware of what is being spent on our behalf.  Never forget, we are paying these bills;  pay me now or pay me later with interest.

If we ever hope to get medical costs under control, people have to have more skin in the game and we need competition.  Most folks have a favorite mechanic because they refuse to pay the dealers to fix their cars.  But in this case, you go where the ambulance goes and you are far too sick to go shopping.  We count on the government and insurance industry to control the charges – this works for all of our other insurance.  Unfortunately, politics and our tort system prevent all common sense when it comes to medical insurance.  The market cannot function because of the courts, manipulated public opinion and government intervention.

There are many good ideas in ACA [the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare] and many missing.  Don’t drink the right wing kool-aid, America already insures every citizen;  we simply do it in the most expensive and least effective possible fashion.  Don’t drink the left wing, progressive kool-aid;  government is the problem because it cannot do things.

The solutions will involve at least these key things:

·         Government will have to set recommended fees for services, tests and drugs but done on a diagnosis basis – e.g. treating a cold should cost $69.50 including all visits and drugs;  bronchitis, $150;  broken arm, $250;  and so on.

·         Government will have to recommend best practices by diagnosis in order to cut down on unnecessary tests. 

·         Government will have to block all malpractice suits and establish guidelines for arbitration and reparation.

·         Health insurance companies will have to be allowed to operate nationally with federal regulation. 

·         Basic insurance should be individual and replace all existing programs including Medicare, Medicaid, employer, government and pools – we all need to be in the same boat.  These services must include dental and optical.

·         All funding for insurance, for all citizens, should come from separate, purpose specific taxes paid by individuals;  no other tax dollars should be used in the program. 

o   Insurance companies must pay for the government agency that regulates them and keep reserves necessary to cover failed companies. 

o   Insurance companies would pay no income taxes and government cannot use company reserves or individual medical taxes for any other purpose.

·         Some services will not be provided by basic insurance – there will be rationing and “death panels”.

·         No citizen may be prohibited from buying any medical services of any kind nor from purchasing additional insurance that would pay for such services. 

These are the basics and everybody knows this has to happen.  However, the details and actual legislation must be sold to the general public by the President and joint Party leadership.  Nothing this big or this personal can be done by a single Party, even with a super majority and the Presidency – Obamacare proves that.

And finally, the need for cradle to grave insurance is critical to our national competiveness.  The program must first and foremost control the current nation ruing cost escalation.  We need an ACA and we need an American program – not the socialist stuff of other western nations – and we need it soon.

The Abrupt Interest Calamity

This column is an example of why I’m a Samuelson fan. 

Tuesday, Dec. 20, 2011

Bye-bye Keynes?

By Robert J. Samuelson - Washington Post

http://www.thestate.com/2011/12/20/2085765/samuelson-bye-bye-keynes.html#ixzz1h6sxSt3j

I think he makes his key point exceptionally well:  our failure to address the budget deficits risks abrupt increases in interest rates and crippling government austerity, just as in Greece but magnified.

Greeks and others object to losing their benefits and insist that government simply refuse to pay its debts in the delusional belief that they can then go back to borrowing more to fund life as they’ve known it.  These folks are completely ignorant of the worldwide ramifications that would follow a default and the far worse calamity that would then fall on them.

Yet we Americans are going down the same path.  Those that can form a preference for either political Party amaze me.  The solutions are simple enough:

·         Throw the bums out until they finally get the message – the President in particular must be held to account for his failure to lead.

·         Government is too big;  we must demand that it do less.  The federal bureaucracy is beyond bloated, corrupt, redundant and wasteful – reform is overdue. 

·         We must pay for the services we demand.  Listen up greedy seniors.

·         We must have a safety net and while entitlements are out of control, our safety net has too many holes.

·         Taxes must go up.  The best way is to eliminate all exemptions and expand the base – that means everybody pays something and certainly the rich pay more.

·         Never forget that after we pay more to get the services we want, then we’ll have to pay off our debt – the longer we wait, the more we’ll pay.

Anyone that is comfortable with passing our debt to future generations should become Soylent Green without delay.

Fannie and Freddie – Past Time for Them to Go

Here is a short and very excellent article on the subject.

Fannie and Freddie must go - here's how

By William M. Isaac and Richard M. Kovacevich

CNNMoney, December 20, 2011

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/19/news/fannie_freddie/index.htm?eref=mrss_igoogle_business

There is no end to the politicizing of the recent recession but we should never forget that the whole thing was government caused and all the abuses that came along with it were government enabled.

Fannie and Freddie can and should be wound down very quickly and remembered as yet another lesson in the inevitable failure of progressive central management.  Government should recommend and regulate;  government cannot and therefore should not do.  Think the Post Office and the takeover by the awful 111^th Congress of student loans.  These pale of course in comparison to Fannie and Freddie and Medicare or even to the Social Security “Trust Fund” which is filled with IOUs not cash.

Is it just me or are you furious too about student loans?  Congress is now guaranteeing loans to students who have no collateral, no co-signers and in huge numbers, no chance of ever repaying the loans.  And if that isn’t bad enough, the loans can be used at schools with no accreditation and fees higher than Yale and Harvard. 

And another thing.  I'm glad Congress wants extend the payroll tax cut and I'm glad they want to pay for it.  But how does it feel when Congress raises fees rather than cuts some spending somewhere?

Who are these people in our legislature?

The Stench of the United States Post Office

Or is that Congress we smell?

One easy way to judge our politics and our common sense as a nation is to look at the United States Post Office.  No government operation is or could be run as effectively or as efficiently as a private sector business.  But the Post Office stands out as a singularly isolated example of incredible government incompetence.

The USPS lost $5.1 billion in the latest fiscal year – after serious cost-cutting.  Total 2012 losses may exceed $14 billion, a figure larger than the budgets of 35 states.  Mail volume has declined 20% in five years with no end in sight – Netflix is one of their biggest current customers. 

The USPS has the nation’s second-largest civilian workforce behind Wal-Mart.  Their labor represents 80 percent of their total costs – compared to 53 percent for UPS and 32 percent of FedEx – mostly because of union demands and an unaccountable Congress.  When the USPS gets around to laying off a third of its 653,000 employees, Congress will have to overturn the no-layoff provisions in the labor contracts.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) wants to solve the problem by encouraging people to go back to letter writing via an USPS advertizing campaign.  That resulted is this:

Letters “don’t get lost in thin air” and “a refrigerator has never been hacked.  An online virus has never attacked a corkboard.”

“Paper statements are good for business and good for customers.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oysFmSVzCnM

They cannot be serious.  The Senator and her wards would be better off watching this Conan “stench of death” comedy bit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YyA2HDpOj4

How can anyone think that the Post Office should remain a government agency?

Here’s where I stole most of my facts:

Privatize The Nation’s Mail Delivery

By George F. Will, the Washington Post

November 25, 2011

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/privatize-the-nations-mail-delivery/2011/11/23/gIQAe2J7wN_story.html

The Politics of the Two Moons

I absolutely love this description of American politics today.

The Two Moons

By DAVID BROOKS

November 21, 2011, NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/opinion/brooks-the-two-moons.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Brooks says that American bipartisan politics used to be like the sun and the moon.  The majority party was the sun and served the interests of the nation by winning the confidence of the majority of voters while the minority party was the moon, waiting for its turn to be the sun.

But beginning in 1996, the political parties began a process of radicalization to such an extreme that there is no longer a Sun Party – just two radical minority Parties.  The greatest segment of the voting public is left without representation.  President George W. Bush became so widely and deeply disliked that voters punished Republicans in both 2006 and 2008.  But Democrats completely misread voter interests and looked at the 2008 election as a mandate for their most extreme progressive agenda.  The reaction of voters was immediate and the reaction of Republican partisans was predictably vicious.  Unless the Republicans nominate one of their many crazies, we are very likely to see Democrats punished again in 2012 both for the excesses in the 111^th Congress – healthcare, Dodd/Frank etc. – as well as for President Obama’s failure to bring the economy under control or forge any bipartisan cooperation.  The question is, “Will either the winners or the losers be in any way chastened?”

The column is well worth a read but Brooks’ closing sentence might convey, to some, a far more pessimistic outlook than Brooks actually holds.  If you can stand more of this, give Brooks 35 more minutes and watch this interview.

David Brooks

Charlie Rose

Monday, November 21, 2011

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12001

Brooks says we have a politics problem not a country problem.  We’re in for a bad decade but America will recover because we are fundamentally sound.  He alludes to one of my favorite subjects which is that my greedy, selfish and narcissistic generation may need to die off but we will.  Our strengths are the same today as they were when Alexis de Tocqueville identified them in the 1830s – and this is especially and importantly true among those under 30.

Brooks says that no other nation in the world embodies social trust in the way that America does.  Our ability to build social and business networks with strangers, for the good of the community and economy, is unmatched and will ultimately fix our politics as well.

Brooks – and me too – is hesitant about the push for a third party as advocated by people like Tom Friedman.  My objection is the fragmentation that comes with the multi-party parliamentary systems.  N is impressed by the new Americans Elect movement but I remain skeptical.  It is decidedly unclear whether the candidacies of people like George Wallace, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader – to name three – were a good thing or that a third party would lead to anything better. 

One thing does seem clear to me however and that is that if the Republicans actually nominate one of their crazies, huge parts of the American electorate will suddenly put aside their reservations and clamor for an alternative.

George Will’s Tasty Thanksgiving Morsels

You can always count on George Will to entertain and inform.  In this column, Will reminds us of some of the more mindless moments of the year.

Thursday, Nov. 24, 2011

2011’s’ Tasty Leftovers

By GEORGE F. WILL - Washington Post

http://www.thestate.com/2011/11/24/2057466/will-2011s-tasty-leftovers.html#ixzz1ee2hgUpk

This is a must read, even if it’s just for the humor of Will’s writing style. 

Personally, I cannot choose just one favorite but the Seattle teacher who required Easter Eggs to be called “spring spheres” in order to avoid the mention of Easter certainly deserves mention.  Do you think a teacher should know the difference between a sphere and an ellipsoid or would that question take away from the sacred, religious nature of Easter Egg hunts?

Happy Turkey Day.

My Favorite Animal – From Bud

Our teacher asked what our favorite animal was and I said, "Fried chicken." 

She said I wasn't funny but she couldn't have been right because everyone else laughed.  My parents told me to always tell the truth.  I did.  Fried chicken is my favorite animal.  

Anyway, my teacher sent me to the principal's office.  I told him what happened and he laughed too.  Then he told me not to do it again.

I told my dad what happened and he said my teacher was probably a member of PETA.  He said they love animals very much.  I do too, especially chicken and beef.  

The next day in class my teacher asked me what my favorite live animal was.  I told her it was chicken.  She asked me why, so I told her it was because you could make them into fried chicken.  She sent me back to the principal's office.

He laughed and told me not to do it again.

I don't understand.  My parents taught me to be honest but my teacher doesn't like it when I am.  Today my teacher asked us to tell her what famous person we admire most.  I told her, "Colonel Sanders."

Guess where I am now.

The IRS Sent My Tax Return Back – Again

It may have been because of my response to the requirement to "list all dependents”.

I replied:

·         12 million illegal immigrants;

·         3 million crack heads;

·         42 million unemployable people on food stamps;

·         2 million people in over 243 prisons;

·         And 535 fools in the U.S. House and Senate.

[from Bud]

Cowboy Condom Purchase – From Bud

Cowboy:  Give me 3 packets of condoms please.

Cashier:  Do you need a paper bag with that sir?

Cowboy:  Nah ... she ain't that ugly.

SCOTUS will hear the Obamacare Case

This is good news because the sooner the better.  The buy-insurance aspect of the law will come into force pretty soon and if Congress has to change the law in this regard, they will need time – especially in the current climate.

The subject is both momentous and fascinating.  For the average Joe, the law seems necessary and correct.  Everybody who is sick or injured must be treated so everybody should save for this eventuality in the form of buying insurance.  The irresponsible just aren’t going to do what’s right unless we make a law and force them.  In the past, I argued for just such an approach – we make people buy auto insurance, I reasoned.

But after that, I read the Constitution and realized that the Feds making people buy insurance is flatly unConstitutional.  And further, making an exception for healthcare would likely be transformational for American democracy.  That idea attacks the foundations of our government and American exceptionalism.  No wonder other nations chose the national healthcare route and that many wanted that here – that would avoid the Constitutional issues which almost certainly will go against this aspect of Obamacare.

The amateur explanation of the Constitutional issue goes like this:

The federal government’s powers are limited specifically to the “Enumerated Powers” listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States.

Any power not enumerated there belongs to the states and there is no mention of forcing people to buy stuff and no mention of a power to penalize people for not buying stuff.  [You have to buy car insurance only if you insist on driving a car and that requirement is set by the states.]

However, Section 8 authorizes that “Congress shall have power To … provide for the … general Welfare of the United States …” and contains the “Commerce Clause” which states, “The Congress shall have Power [...] To regulate Commerce … among the several States …” 

So, one side says making people buy health insurance is good for everyone – nobody sensible disagrees with that – therefore, general welfare, no Constitutional problem.

The other side says:  but wait.  Excellent judges who have found Obamacare Constitutional have raised the same objections as those who are against it:  If the Commerce Clause can be stretched in this way, what are the limits to Federal power? 

·         Would it be unconstitutional to require people to buy broccoli?  Or fine people who smoke cigarettes and eat cheeseburgers?

·         Could people making more than $500,000 be required to buy cars from General Motors to keep it in business?

·         Can we force people to put money into retirement accounts to replace or supplement Social Security?”

·         How about a law mandating that parents purchase private college savings accounts?

Judges on both sides of the issue are openly concerned about the “slippery slope”.  No judge and no lawyer supporting the mandate has been able to answer the key question:  “If this mandate is Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, what can government not do”?  This is the amateur's understanding of the “slippery slope” concern:

In a very different 1995 case about guns, the government used the Commerce Clause to defend a law.  Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote that “we pause to consider the implications of the government’s arguments” in defending the law – that stopping activities that could lead to violent crime relates to interstate commerce because it affects “national productivity.”  Under that reasoning, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, “It is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power,” adding that “if we were to accept the government’s arguments, we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.”

The other side argues that slippery slope arguments are themselves slippery.  Walter Dellinger, the acting solicitor general under President Bill Clinton, told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “If it is within the scope of regulating commerce to set a minimum wage … then Congress could set the minimum wage at $5,000 an hour.”  But that would never happen, he said, for practical, political and legal reasons.  Get it?  He’s saying, “Trust us”.

The SCOTUS will absolutely be looking at consequences and so far, no advocate has been able to satisfy any judge about those – I think SCOTUS would scoff at Walter Dellinger’s arguments.

The last time the Obamacare law was upheld was Tuesday.  A three-judge panel of the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the law but Judge Silberman, who wrote the majority opinion, suggested that the ruling meant that Congress could do anything at all.  He said he remained troubled by “the government’s failure to advance any clear doctrinal principles limiting Congressional mandates that any American purchase any product or service in interstate commerce.”  You can be absolutely certain that the SCOTUS will issue no such reasoning.  In fact, proponents look at this decision as a potential Pyrrhic victory for the Obama Administration.

The case will now be heard in March and they’ll issue a decision before the election so we’ll learn a lot about the law and we’ll hear all sorts of stuff from the political side.  For some of us at least, this will be really fascinating.  If the mandate is struck down, Obamacare will almost certainly have to be repealed.  The law is a house of cards and it cannot be implemented without the mandate and it can’t just sit there.  Will the Court comment on that?  How will this affect the election campaigns?

The political side will be interesting at another level too for the President.  He is a Constitutional scholar and teacher.  He takes a big risk if he claims the law is clearly Constitutional – no scholar is going to see it that way – and for most of the campaign he won’t know what the Court is going to decide.  There will surely be arguments outside the Court about literalism and “what would the Founders do?” and the President will not want to be involved in those during the general election.  The nation’s center is going to be put off by the lefty position on this subject and alarmed by the implications.

At the same time, the President cannot now come out and doubt any aspect of the law that is the center piece of his failed Administration.  How can the Constitutional lawyer now say that the law he pushed so hard and then celebrated is Constitutionally flawed?  I think we can be certain that his campaign guys wanted this to hit the SCOTUS after the election.  We can be almost as sure that the Democrats “victory” Tuesday is a major factor in the SCOTUS decision to act now.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is a terrible law passed in the most objectionable fashion conceivable.  It is very likely a law that is Constitutionally flawed – what will that say about our government?  Can you imagine Democrats allowing it to be repealed or working with Republicans to fix it?  Can you see a way for that 3,000 page monstrosity to be implemented with a Constitutional flaw?  But finally, what exactly are we going to do about the rapidly rising cost of healthcare? 

Mitt Romney, the Serious One

There is really only one viable Republican candidate for President in the nation.  It’s simply too late for any otherwise viable politician to enter the Republican primary race at this point, just as it is too late for any Democrat – other than Hilary Clinton – to mount a primary challenge to President Obama.  The darlings of the Republican base couldn’t qualify for dog catcher.  That Perry was ever elected governor of any state is mystifying to me but that aside, he has been so unserious as a Presidential candidate that, in my view, he has permanently terminated his entire political career.  Aside from Romney, the only member of the Republican field that is qualified to be there is Governor/Ambassador Jon Huntsman but he is running for 2020 [or 2016 if Romney screws up].

Far too many otherwise intelligent people – left and right – have fallen for the purity nonsense on offer from folks who should be seen as the fringe radicals they are.  We were fools to elect a community organizer to the office of President of the United States of America – ditto the Bible thumping, x-drunk frat boy.  Important national problems can only be solved with national consensus.  Whatever it is that we hate about the other side, the fact is that some of their ideas are correct, some of our side’s are wrong and no important progress can be made without consensus.  We are not trying to win;  we're trying to get it right.

Thus we need the likes of Presidents Clinton or Reagan and not Presidents Carter, W, or Obama.  Romney is the next guy;  he has experience and nerdy competence.  People say that JFK would never been able to handle the Cuban missile crisis had he not failed so miserably over the Bay of Pigs.  America’s greatest single fiscal problem is healthcare and Romneycare is likely to be the single best preparation exercise a leader could have for tackling the problem nationally.

Mitt Romney has not just been running for President for many years, he has been preparing for the office.  Compare his preparation, desire and tireless effort to that of the others – except for Huntsman, the others aren’t even capable of this kind of commitment.

After the Bush and Obama disasters sensible folks have to be concerned about whether Romney will be any better – not that we have any alternative at this point.   So, I found these remarks from David Brooks incredibly reassuring.  This is worth a read.

The Serious One

By DAVID BROOKS

NYT, November 7, 2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/opinion/brooks-mitt-romney-the-serious-one.html?_r=1&ref=davidbrooks

Don’t forget:  if you care about our kids and grandkids, every one of us must vote in the Republican primaries.  It’s not just that Romney must be nominated, it’s also necessary to marginalize the Republican base to the fullest extent possible.  Even if you plan to vote for President Obama in the general election, I hope you will vote in the Republican primaries and not as a spoiler but as a citizen that wants to help force our political Parties back toward true public service.

Cool Gadget

This is cool from Bud.

http://www.drawastickman.com/

Sexual Harassment

N and I are among the last of the dinosaur marriages and we watched as the world of women’s rights took its most dramatic turn since suffrage.  For a while, N’s role was ridiculed by some women – we thought they were all nuts.  A big part of the change involved sex and abuse.  We talked about these things and their impact often over the years.  Lately, I have been remembering a lot of this while I watch Cain struggle – he was born two years after us.

Important adjustments were made in our time.  Men cannot demand sex, not even from a wife in a dinosaur marriage.  Women cannot “ask for” rape and no is no.  We found ways to get women to report rape and prosecute it without losing their friends, families or spouses.  With evidence, his-word-against-hers stopped working.  It’s hard to believe that any of this was ever even the least bit controversial but it was and then we pretty quickly got over it.

The hardest part came in the workplace under the heading of sexual harassment.  Boys chase girls – or so they think – and girls go where they are most likely to be chased.  It’s often hard to read the signals and with a little kool-aid it can get progressively harder.  The new objective in this area was to find a way to protect women from the unwanted attentions of more powerful men who sometimes demanded sexual favors of various degrees in exchange for job safety or advancement.  That important objective is forever complicated by those girls who are anxious to execute such transactions as well as the cheaters and extortionists.  

At work, we joked about ordinary mortals such as ourselves who were taught that girls should play hard-to-get and boys should show their commitment with persistence.  “Why won’t that idiot harass me a little?”  In truth, we all knew the rules and signals well enough.  Girls will help out the male dummies – or not;  we always knew that was a clue.  The over persistent were always jerks;  99% of them are harmless and everybody knew it.  Men were quickly retrained and there was no more touching without an invitation – girls were and still are allowed;  they use it as one of the clues for the clueless.  In the beginning, there was plenty of controversy, some severe penalties and some opportunism and extortion.  But we adjusted and life went on.

One group that never really went down the politically correct road was black men and women.  The attack by Anita Hill on Clarence Thomas was an aberration and coming 10 years after the alleged offence was ultimately ignored.  I’m convinced that almost everyone believed Hill – that Thomas made passes and lewd remarks – but we didn’t care and we didn’t think she cared at the time it happened.

We don’t know the complete Cain story;  at least not yet.  But it sounds as though he was one of those guys who asked every woman he met to have sex with him – even women that worked in his organization.  Two other things appear to be true:  one, that he got more persistent as the drinking increased and the night wore on and two, that his offers were sometimes accepted.  We have not yet heard a single suggestion of improper action or consequences beyond boorish persistence.  The guy sounds like an offensive but harmless jerk.  We’ve all known our share of guys like him.  He almost certainly offended people and made it easy for women to complain.

We are lucky.  Herman Cain is an empty suit on so many levels that we just don’t have to care about the details of these particular sins.  Just his handling of the reports is so incompetent as to disqualify him from the office that he is not really running for anyway.

We made important changes in my lifetime and now I think it’s time for another adjustment or two.  Let’s stay out of the private lives of our public servants and other consenting adults while we also do what we can to reduce abuse and extortion in harassment lawsuits.

Oops.  As of 2:30 Monday it looks as though Cain was touching which of course goes beyond being a jerk.  As I said, we're lucky we don't have to decide whether it's all true.  [If it is true, how could such a guy even think about getting this much into the spotlight?]  I stand by my reform thoughts.

Chris Matthews on JFK and Obama

I have not been a fan of Chris Matthews but I found the man in this interview engaging.  It helps, I think, that his book is about JFK who I’m sure is more interesting to the older of us than the younger – Matthews tells us stuff about Kennedy that I didn’t know.  And could it possibly be that all of us aging boys, who grew up on cowboy movies, are still hoping to be heroes and still fascinated by those we think actually are?

Toward the end of this interview Rose asks to switch to current politics.  Matthews – the man of Obama leg tingles – seems surprisingly sober in evaluating the President and admitting that he has not led.  More importantly, I think Matthews offers us a picture of leadership that we might all accept and use to measure candidates.

Chris Matthews on his book:  Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero

Charlie Rose on Monday, October 31, 2011  -  38 minutes

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11971

If you only want the politics, wait for the whole thing to cue up and then move the slider to 28:38.  This does not always work.

Interesting Remarks by E. J. Dionne and Will Folks

This might not be interesting to non-South Carolinians but it is a blue state talking head going on about a red state picking a Republican Presidential candidate.

In any case, here’s a column by the lefty Dionne that seems to be an objective observation of our SC politics.  The piece feels homey because of all the references to some of our locals.  Also, I thought Folks’ remarks were right on – a little surprising coming from a Sanford aid and Haley basher. 

Friday, Nov. 04, 2011

Romney and the S.C. conundrum

By E.J. Dionne Jr. - Washington Post

http://www.thestate.com/2011/11/04/2033770/dionne-romney-and-the-sc-conundrum.html#ixzz1clOFRun7

Speaking of Governor Haley, she hasn’t changed her rather objectionable partisan or Palin stripes but the state is doing very well indeed under her leadership.  I’m thinking of business acquisition and the recent pension board actions in particular.

SC gets a Good Review for a Change

This might make you smile even if you’re not from South Carolina.  Charlie Rose is interviewing Lionel Barber, Editor of the Financial Times, on the European Central Bank and the debt deal for Greece.

Near the end, Rose innocently asks what positive American stories might get the Times’ attention and Barber singles out South Carolina.  The giggle comes when Rose, whose progressive instincts are offended by any praise for a red state, tries to explain away Barber’s example.  Take a listen.

Note:  the entire 15 minute interview should be interesting to anyone who cares about the euro problems but the SC bit is only a moment late in the interview.  If you want just that, wait for the piece to fully cue and then move the slider to 11:48.

Lionel Barber Editor of the 'Financial Times'

Charlie Rose on Monday, October 31, 2011

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11973

America the Centrist

I like to say that libertarians are to public policy making what cat ladies are to animal husbandry.  But, here is a libertarian with some sober, easy to understand reality regarding capitalism and the incentive aspect of government policy.  Try to forget Ron Paul and the fools who support him and give Epstein nine of your precious minutes.

Does U.S. Economic Inequality Have a Good Side?

Richard Epstein, New York University School of Law

PBS NewsHour, Air Date: Oct. 26, 2011  -  9 minutes

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec11/makingsense_10-26.html

I think I’m a liberal but no latter day liberal is willing to have me.  I gave up being a libertarian some time ago but I remain a proud, hedonistic, running-dog capitalist. 

Unfortunately, economics is only part of national policy making.  Libertarians are unable to even discuss safety nets and progressives are always only inches away from chopping up the golden goose and handing out the parts.

In my old age, I have a growing concern for America’s ever expanding underclass and what I see as decades of wrong-headed government policy regarding the “poor” and our national “safety net”.  Think Pat Moynihan.  Voters are ready for a change but the only alternative on offer is the same abyss from a different route.  Government is failing us;  the culprits are Congress followed by the Presidency, the Judiciary and the Forth Estate;  the responsibility is ours.  The only truely evil lobbies are the Democrats and Republicans.

Both political Parties are part of the problem and in no way part of the solution.  Their biggest contribution has been to divide the voting public and persuade us to passionately take sides with one of two equally destructive and fact-free public policy attitudes.  To make matters worse, the “sides” are dividing into even less rational splinter groups whose representatives would have been booed off their soap boxes just a generation ago.  Our political parties strain to absorb these fringe loonies creating a kind of alternate reality in government where nothing sensible is possible.  

If you imagine a clock face and make 6:00 the political center, then you can imagine the political left and right moving away from one another and becoming ever more radical as they move separately toward midnight.  At midnight the two sides meet and becoming basically indistinguishable as anarchists and libertarians – no government crazies.  On the way, the two pass through communism and fascism respectively.

America is a 6:00 nation and we should be passionate about “taking back our country” from anyone who strays too far from our treasured, mixing pot, pragmatic – think compromise and individual liberty – center.  Following these rules, Mitt Romney is the quintessential model for American political leadership.  Lefties and righties:  look around you;  suck it up.

Here’s A Little Abbott and Costello Style Humor

How many of our kids know who Abbott and Costello were?  Would they ROTFLOL at "Who's on first?" the way we and our parents did?

Mother Goose and Grimm by Mike Peters - Thursday, Nov. 3rd, 2011