A second chance on Medicare prescription drug discounts
President Obama's comprehensive health care plan is still on the
legislative table. It lies there, like an eviscerated chicken, waiting
to be prepared for public consumption. What is now required is final
passage in both Houses of an agreed-upon conference bill or acceptance
by the House of Representatives of the Senate's bill, to be sent on to
the president for his signature. Tempus Fugit, Mr. President
President Barack Obama's greatest success: passage of health care
legislation in both Houses and ultimately into law. The president's
greatest failure: passage of health care legislation in both Houses and
ultimately into law - in its current, nearly toothless condition. The war on terror is not a police action
Recently I read what I believe to be the very best column I've seen criticizing President Obama's attitude and strategy in the war against Islamic terrorism. The column was written by Charles Krauthammer and entitled "War? What War?" I will be making references to his arguments, but I also suggest you read the entire column. In 2004, I supported George W. Bush for a second term as president because I believed that the most important issue facing the United States was the threat posed by Islamic terrorism, a life or death issue. Even though I did not agree with President Bush on a single domestic issue, I nevertheless supported him because I believed the Democratic candidate, John Kerry, took positions that were not adequate for the struggle ahead. Moreover, I believed the Democratic Party was not up to the responsibility to protect America and its allies from those in al-Qaida and the Taliban who had made clear they were committed to murdering every Christian, Jew and Hindu who refused to convert to Islam or pay tribute. I have no regrets in having taken that position.
Now to the Krauthammer column. He opens with a knockout punch, quoting Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano saying "the system worked" when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian Muslim terrorist, was apparently used by al-Qaida in an attempt to bring down an American airliner with 288 people on board, over Detroit. I won't cite all of the facts as to why the system, in fact, did not work and how lucky we were that a Dutch passenger tackled and restrained the terrorist. Why haven't we honored that brave civilian? And why haven't we publicly shown appreciation to the two police officers who risked their lives to take down the Fort Hood Muslim terrorist, Major Nidal Hasan, before he could kill and maim others? Krauthammer makes a telling point when he writes:
Constructive criticism has a role
In 1956, Adlai Stevenson inspired me to get involved in politics. I honed my public speaking abilities on the streets of New York in support of his campaigns for president, first in 1952 and again in 1956. My law office was at 52 Wall Street. Every day at noon, I would stand on the steps of the US Subtreasury Building at the corner of Wall and Nassau Streets, where I would address the hundred or more mostly New York Stock Exchange employees having their lunch. One day, a cop came by and asked me for my permit to speak. I told him, "You don't need a permit, officer, unless you use a sound-enhancing device." Not agreeing with my interpretation of the law, he said, "Move along, or I'll arrest you." I replied, "Officer, look across the street." There, every day, hell, fire and brimstone ministers - then known as holy rollers - were waving Bibles and haranguing people to accept Jesus as their lord and savior, and did so for hours. I said to the police officer, "You don't ask them for permits." He replied, "They're different. They're fanatics. Move along!" And so I did. I have never been a fanatic. I am a liberal, and sane. Despite my best efforts, however, Stevenson lost to Dwight Eisenhower on both occasions. On reflection, many Stevenson supporters, myself included, would say today that the country was better off under Eisenhower than it would have been under Stevenson. Our candidate was a great orator, but probably - we'll never know for certain - not so effective at getting things done. It has been nearly a year since President Obama took office, and the question many are asking is "how effective has he been?" Obama's decision on Afghanistan is wrong
I have no doubt that President Barack Obama and his advisors engaged in extensive discussions on what our policy should be in Afghanistan and came up with the solution they concluded would best protect the United States. The solution was to add 30,000 more US troops to the 68,000 now in Afghanistan and to begin withdrawing our troops in 18 months based on conditions on the ground and success in turning over combat activities to the Afghan army. I truly admire the president and his closest advisors - Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Senior Advisor David Axelrod and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen. I have no doubt they want to do what is in the best interest of our country. Nevertheless, I believe the president has made the wrong decision. I hope I am wrong in my conclusion. Mr. President, bring the troops home
If General Stanley McChrystal's request of President Obama for 40,000 additional troops for Afghanistan is to be met, the cost would be $40 billion to $54 b. a year, according to an internal government estimate published by The New York Times on November 15. The General originally requested 80,000 additional troops. The Times reports, "The rough formula used by the White House, of about $1 million per soldier a year, appears almost constant." The same article quotes Congressman John Murtha (D-PA), chairman of a subcommittee on defense appropriations, as saying that "total spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would surge past $1 trillion next year, which could hamper the economy for years to come." It is almost a foregone conclusion that the president will not authorize the 40,000 soldiers requested, but in all probability, he will authorize a smaller number. Any increase, as opposed to embarking upon an immediate exit strategy, would be a grave error. We need to stand up and shout 'No'
We still don't have full liquidity. Even worse, many of the firms securing TARP funds did not fulfill their mission as lenders. Instead, they used TARP funds for investment purposes and became even richer than they were before the debacle they were responsible for. Graham Bowley of The New York Times summed it all up in his article of October 17, 2009. He wrote:
Financial institutions are making huge profits as a result of having been saved by the taxpayers and TARP monies, and not having used those monies for lending purposes. They also know that our government still believes in the two axioms: "too big to fail" and "too big to jail." Too big to jail
On October 12, the insurance companies released a report they had commissioned on the impact of the Baucus Senate bill expanding health coverage, which will be voted on today, October 13. According to The New York Times, the report, prepared by Price-Waterhouse Coopers, states that "premiums would climb sharply with the passage of comprehensive health legislation." The report also stated that "selected provisions of a bill from the Senate Finance Committee could increase premiums 18 percent more than they would otherwise rise in the next decade, to an average of nearly $26,000 for families and $9,700 for individuals in 2019." Under the Baucus bill, the insurance companies retain control over the premiums they charge customers, except that they may not discriminate on the basis of preexisting conditions. Take the insurance companies at their word. They will raise those premiums by those amounts. They have given Congress the best reason to include in the legislation a government option to compete with them. Such an option should have to compete fairly with no additional government subsidies or funding not provided to private sector insurance companies. The government option's ability to compete and provide lower prices would be dependent on its elimination of the profit now included by the insurance companies, which would undoubtedly increase with the addition of millions of additional customers after new universal health coverage legislation takes effect. No quid pro quo for scrapping European missile defense shield?
President Barack Obama lost a golden opportunity last week and exhibited surprising naiveté in foreign affairs when he unilaterally agreed to scrap plans for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. The president decided to undo the actions of former president George W. Bush, who had continued president Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" concept by placing a radar station in the Czech Republic and an anti-ballistic missile site in Poland, all on the borders of Russia. The response of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev to Bush's strategic move was to threaten retaliation by having Russian ballistic missiles aimed at NATO countries. The US claimed that the two installations were defensive only, and were intended to shoot down nuclear missiles aimed at Western Europe, Israel and America by Iran, North Korea, or terrorists. The Russians, of course, scoffed at Bush's explanation. Remember how the US under president John Kennedy reacted when the Soviet Union, then headed by Nikita Khrushchev, placed ballistic missiles in Cuba? We threatened war if they were not removed. We also imposed a blockade preventing Soviet ships from entering Cuban waters without first being searched for nuclear missiles. A third world war involving the US and the Soviet Union was avoided when the Soviet Union agreed to withdraw all of its nuclear ballistic missiles from Cuba and the US agreed to withdraw its ballistic missiles from NATO member Turkey. President Obama should have secured a similar quid pro quo from Russia before he terminated the planned missile defense program in Eastern Europe. What do we need from Russia? We want Russia to use its influence with Iran to end Iran's research and development of nuclear weapons. If Iran declines to stop its nuclear weapons program, we want Russia's support for greater sanctions in a resolution to be voted on at the United Nations Security Council. Russia has publicly stated it will oppose such a resolution. The leverage that Obama might have had with Russia was lost when he unilaterally gave Russia what it wanted. To Obama: Don't get trapped in Afghanistan - let's get out now
President Obama did an excellent job, in both delivery and substance, when he addressed a joint session of Congress last week. As I listened to him, I was reminded of my own days in Congress. Before I left Congress in 1977 to serve as Mayor of New York City, I attended similar addresses of Presidents Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. I sat in the House of Representatives Chamber thinking how lucky I was to live in such a great country and to have been given the opportunity to represent my fellow citizens in Congress. I recall when President Johnson appeared in that Chamber in January 1969 after President Nixon had been elected but before he took office. As Johnson entered the Chamber and walked down the aisle past me, I reached over and patted him on the shoulder. Although he was unaware of my touch, I said to myself, "I forgive you." I was referring to the Vietnam War, the results of which caused him not to run for reelection. President Johnson had hugely increased the number of American soldiers sent to South Vietnam. I believe he ultimately poured in more than 50,000 combat troops. His enormous good works and reputation, as a result of his civil rights legislative record and "Great Society" initiatives, were lost as he became responsible in the public's collective conscience for the war and was blamed for the casualties, deaths and billions of dollars spent to prop up a corrupt Vietnamese government in an ongoing civil war. The United States was ultimately required to pull out in a publicly humiliating way. As the North Vietnam troops were entering Saigon, later renamed Ho Chi Min City, we ferried American military and civilians, as well as Vietnamese civilians, by helicopter from the roof of our embassy in Saigon to our Navy ships offshore. Many people, myself included, do not believe we can win the war in Afghanistan. The British and the Russians gave up on Afghanistan, as probably did Alexander the Great of ancient Macedonia. Even if we were to win, what would we have won? |
 |
 
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs
Top Rated Posts
Tags:Blogroll |
Comments (4)
