Pat-downs and Healthcare Reform: Government Restraint

Consider for a moment the furor over the TSA's new security precautions. Leave aside for a moment the question of whether they are good or bad, prudent or unwise.

Instead, think of this. Whether they are necessary or not, the TSA can use them. They can pat you down respectfully, or it can turn into groping. It might not--but it might. They can get an image of your naked body. They might treat this respectfully, and the image might not be saved. But it might.

It all really all depends on what the TSA does, as an institution, and what those individual agents do. You have no ability to determine the outcome.

You can rage and vent and film the episode on your iPhone. You can write to your congressman and call a talk-show to complain.

But, ultimately, they can do what they want, and you will do what they want, or you will not fly, or you will go to jail or pay a fine.

They have all the power. We hope they will use it well, but can't do anything about it.

Now, consider the healthcare situation.

The government will be able to call the shots. Hopefully, they will be prudent and humane. Hopefully they will be efficient. Hopefully they will not play favorites.

But it all depends on what they do--we have no power in this situation.

Is this good? Is this wise? Will it really lead to a better life for people?

A government that can mandate an hourly employee to touch your genitals and inspect your naked body is a government that can do pretty much anything it wants. We can hope it will use that power wisely. But, unless things change, hoping is really all we can do.

Is that a tenable situation? Does history and a knowledge of human nature give us reason to think our hopes will be validated?

Stop Whining, Madame Speaker

Oh, honestly. Read this silly profile of Nancy Pelosi. Count how many times she either says or implies that she has been treated unfairly because she is a woman. Come on! She's the Speaker of the House, second in line for the Presidency. It is a bit jarring to hear someone with her situation in life paint herself as a victim. I mean, come on!

If someone is a woman or black or gay or Mormon or Muslim or whatever--any kind of minority, then they need to be mature enough to do the job and stop ascribing every bit of opposition to the sexism/racism/homophobia/religious intolerance of voters. It gets kind of old.

Must Read Piece by Bob Herbert (Seriously)

You won't often see the RC link to a piece by Bob Herbert from the NY Times. However, today, we are doing just that. You need to read this. It's about the plight of young, black males and what Herbert thinks needs to be done. And if you don't finish nodding your head and wanting to shout "Amen" and possibly grab a flag and man the barricades then something is wrong for you.

This is the kind of issue that any decent person, conservative, liberal, whatever, ought to care about deeply. If we have any chance of maintaining a civil society, these are the kind of problems that need to be addressed, and these are the kind of changes that need to be made. If we can't all agree on this, then we are quite possibly doomed.

Shielded from the Consequences of their Decisions

Secretary Napolitano assures us that the new body scans and the enhanced pat-downs are really ok. The scans are safe and the pat-downs are discreet. She said this in a piece she wrote that was published in USA Today.

I don't like to be cynical. When an official of the government at her level speaks, I want to believe her.

But here's my problem.

Secretary Napolitano (and others at her level) don't have to endure these scans and pat-downs. To me, this is a micro-cosmic snapshot of what is wrong with our government. Those who make decisions are essentially insulated from the real-world effects of those decisions. She asks us to be supportive and patient--but will she ever have to deal with this?

I had the same problem with the healthcare reform bill. The Representatives and Senators who voted for this will not really have to live with the consequences. Nor will they have to live with Social Security, for good or bad.

It seems fundamental to me that as soon as decision-makers are removed from the consequences of their decisions, the decisions are going to be problematic.

An Open Letter to Speaker Pelosi

Dear Speaker Pelosi,

I just read an article in the Washington Post in which E. J. Dionne talks about how conservatives have demonized you at least in part because you are a woman. Dionne is clearly a fan of yours and seems to feel that you have been sorely aggrieved in the way Republicans have used you as a "political pinata."

(I'll pause here to note that when liberals savage conservatives, like Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich a few years back, it is just something that they need to expect because they are public figures. But when conservatives target liberals, the media cluck and shake their heads and are "troubled" by the decline in civility. I know that's not an original observation, but I want to make it anyway.)

But, back to Speaker Pelosi being persecuted by Republicans because she's a woman.

Hogwash.

That is just flat out ridiculous and someone needs to call you on it.

Speaker Pelosi, I was relieved and excited when you lost your majority and it had nothing to do with the sequence or kind of your chromosomes.

I was relieved because the policies you rammed through the House will hurt my family. The healthcare bill, for example. It was passed, and now we are finding out what's in it--just like you said! For my family, we are finding out that there is an increase in cost and decrease in benefits. We can no longer use our pre-tax dollars in our Flex account to pay for over the counter drugs. That has a big impact on our budget. And next year, the amount we can put away in our Flex account will be severely constrained and reduced. And that's just for starters! We have rationing and long lines to look forward to, and a future in which our healthcare decisions are made with all the care and efficiency we've come to expect from the DMV.

Remember the day healthcare was passed? Remember how you went on a victory stroll holding the giant gavel in front of all the protestors? Bad form, that. You could have celebrated your triumph a little more circumspectly, and not gloated. Instead of acknowledging that millions of Americans had deep concerns about the legislation, you rubbed in in our faces.

My family may lose free checking because of the financial reforms you pushed through. And let's talk about cap-and-trade. We live in the country because we wanted a better life and better schools for our children. We commute in to the city to work. A carbon tax would be devastating to our way of life, forcing us back into the city into a crowded apartment and sub-standard schools.

How about the tax cuts that you want to expire--you know, the tax cuts for the "rich" who make over $250,000? Some of those "rich" people pay my salary. In fact, all the clients who support my business are "rich." I have never made much money from poor people. The rich people support my family. If their tax rates go up, they'll have less discretionary income and the company for which I work might have some serious problems and I could lose my job. But I guess I shouldn't worry since you all extended unemployment benefits for two years. The problem is, Madame Speaker, I would rather work.

This is why I am delighted you lost your majority. I think your policies are detrimental to the country and my family's way of life.

It is your ideas I dislike, not the fact that you are a woman.

Health and Education Reform

During the debate over health care, I have been frustrated by the apparent lack of interest in really finding solutions to what is clearly a growing problem. Both sides have engaged in their share of demagoguery instead of honest discussion. The RC's viewpoint is that while the Republicans have done this to some extent, the Democrats have been far worse.

One of the most frustrating elements of this is the complete refusal of the Democrats to entertain what seems so obvious to many of us: at least part of the steep health care costs curve is driven by the fact that doctors are forced to practice medicine while looking over their shoulder at lawsuits. This seems so obvious that it seems beyond doubt and ought to be uncontroversial.

It is not the whole problem, but it seems at least to be a substantial driver of health-care costs. At the very least, should it not at least be explored? Should we not at least listen to the doctors and consider what they say?

Having said that, I now want to talk about education reform. Seriously. Here's why. I submit that what malpractice costs are to liberals in the health care debate, class sizes are to conservatives in the education reform debate.

Let me explain.

It seems beyond obvious that a doctor who is worried about being sued will order unnecessary tests and that will drive costs up. To argue with that just seems unserious. At the same time, it seems equally obvious that a teacher with 25, 30, or more students will not be able to do a good job.

Is it the entire problem? No. Are there some bad, lazy teachers? Yes. Are there unmotivated students spoiled by absentee parents? Absolutely.

However, with healthcare, enacting tort reform would be a good starting point. Listen to what the doctors say--act to address the problem they bring up and then see what happens. We could address the other problems as the next step. Systematically eliminate an obvious problem, and then see what other problems remain.

Why not do the same thing with class size? Listen to the teachers and say, "Ok, we'll take you at your word. We'll reduce class sizes." Then, we are in a stronger position to address other problems in the system. It takes away an excuse, shows good faith, and actually addresses a real problem.

Part of my job is recruiting families to attend a private school. One of their first questions is about class size. Why? Because, while it isn't the sole factor, it is clearly an obvious marker of educational quality. No one would be willing to fork out five figures to be in a class of 25 or 30. That would be a joke. And yet, some conservatives argue with a straight face that class sizes are not a serious problem.

Having said that, the RC fully acknowledges that decreasing class size is not easy. It involves serious challenges to budgets and facilities. Still, if we are serious about improving education, we have to at least address and discuss the issue.

Elation!

The RC is elated! Ecstatic! Jubilant! In fact, the RC has not felt so euphoric since 1994 when the Republicans swept into Congress for the first time in a generation.

Congratulations, Senator Brown (R., Mass.)!!!!

The RC is so excited that he has decided to post something again. Actually, he has been wanting to post for some time now. Happily, a major lifestyle change just occured which will free the RC to post the incisive commentary and analysis that all two of you have come to depend on. Or at least are kind enough to read.

At any rate, as I ponder the news tonight--a Republican won Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachussets--I am convinced more than ever that all is not lost. This country is still America and majority of Americans want it to remain that way.

There are battles head, but tonight gives us great reason to hope!