Category: Politics

More baloney

Last night, the President finally appealed to Americans to support deficit reduction, urging them to contact their representatives in Congress. Problem is that it’s not going to get the job done, as even Americans are divided as to the best approach.

Polls indicate that what Americans fear even more than the government defaulting on its loans are cuts in Medicare funding, and with good reason. It’s no secret Obama has been touting slicing some $600 billion dollars out of Medicare, largely by cutting back 30% on payments to doctors and hospitals. Finally, the AARP, usually in lock step with the Obama administration, is vociferously protesting and running spirited ads.

I just don’t see how it’s going to fly. Yesterday I had to visit my ophthalmologist. In the course of office banter, the deficit crisis came up, and I mentioned the proposal being kicked around in DC to cut back 30% on Medicare outlays. He shared that he didn’t know how he could absorb it. He might have to refuse Medicare clients. His current expenses were running so high it was possible that he couldn’t retire. This from a doctor!

Curiously, when I walked into the doctor’s office, virtually all of us were gray panthers, or getting there in a hurry. It’s reassuring that there are some 50 million of us and we do vote.

I’m not sure Americans remember that one of the President’s carrots for getting his Health Reform Bill passed was a promise to cut some $500 billion from Medicare by eliminating waste. Yeah some waste, but $500 billion’s worth? Hey, am I missing something here? Do the Dodgers still play in Brooklyn?

To play fair, I’m equally chagrined at the Republicans, intimidated by their purist Tea Party colleagues, resisting an increase in tax revenue. As I’ve pointed out in an earlier blog, it would solve our budget deficit problems in short order over a space of several years. You just can’t have your cake and eat it, too. We need a mix of cutting spending and raising revenue.

By the way, where are the cuts in benefit outlays for members of Congress? Oh, I forgot–they’re not under Medicare!

The psychology behind Obama’s decision making

It’s Monday and a new day begins for troubled markets as party chiefs once again try to resolve the deficit impasse that threatens a financial meltdown with global implications. Nevertheless, I remain optimistic that cooler heads will prevail and a deal will be struck, though perhaps to no one’s liking. Whatever we do, it’s probable our credit rating will drop from triple to double A, resulting in higher borrowing interest for everybody.

In this post, however, my focus is on the psychological dynamics at work in our President’s seeming inability to provide firm, creative, leadership across the board. Quite frankly, he lacks leadership spunk, the resourcefulness of occasionally putting up his dukes, or more bluntly, becoming a just plain son-of-a-bitch, Harry Truman style if you will. Mind you, we’re in a war, economically speaking, with high stakes. We can’t afford taking the wrong options. As on a real battlefield, leaders must develop a strategy and prove decisive in its execution. Our president, however, a kind man, lacks the killing instinct to get the job done. It’s never a straight path for him. He’d rather waddle. In my previous post, I spoke loud and clear on the President’s tendency to put up the white flag prematurely, undermining his promises, and in the process, giving strength to the opposition, who increasingly perceive him as vulnerable.

Why is he this way? With the increasing advances in neurobiology comes a possible answer. Medical researchers can now map and measure the brain’s capacity to respond to our emotions. Frankly, some of us are wired to be hot, or emotionally sensitive; conversely, there are the cold types, or those said to have “ice in their veins.” I suspect good relief pitchers in baseball belong to this tribe. The worst of the cold types, of course, are the sociopaths, who can shoot 76 teens in a Norwegian camp and argue afterwards how it was necessary. Neurology has grown so advanced that we can even detect who the sociopaths are.

In the realm of finance, an offshoot of neurology has been the development of neuroeconomics, or the study of the cognitive processes at work behind financial decision-making. Let’s take a case scenario: Investors in Wall Street who consistently earn little tend to be markedly conservative, with little appetite for risk. A few losses and they quickly panic. Often they’ll opt for investing in bonds rather than equities, even though over a sustained period, and despite market downturns, the latter out perform bonds. This conservatism, rampant among the hot types, has given rise to what’s known as “myopic loss aversion.” As British psychologist Kevin Dutton remarks, “Emotion, it would seem, is so oriented toward risk aversion that even when the benefits outweigh the losses it henpecks our brains into erring on the side of caution” (Split Second Persuasion, 20011, p. 208).

Our president, surely one of the more cautious and feeling presidents we’ve known, unfortunately mirrors the hot-wired grouping of those undermined by an excessive capacity for empathy. He can see, or better, feel both sides. The result: consensus or compromise, whittling down previous commitment.

In the business model, you may not like it, but the ruthless prove the most successful entrepreneurs, whether Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. In his now classic studies, Harvard’s Stanley Rachman studied bomb disposal experts with 10-years or more experience, specifically those decorated and undecorated. What separates the great ones from the merely good? Rachman made a startling find: the heart rate of the undecorated remained stable, even though subject to high stress. However, here’s the thumper, the heart rate of the decorated proved unstable. It went down!

Rachman discovered something else: not only did successful risk-taking have a physiological basis, but something additional was in the mix–confidence (Stanley Rachman, “Fear and Courage: A Psychological Perspective,” Social Research 71(1) (2004),14976).

Obama is fond of Abraham Lincoln, perhaps intuitively in seeking a mentor of what he would like in himself. While we obviously aren’t able to map Lincoln’s brain via an fMRI, we can presume he had the necessary prerequisite of confidence to make the crucial, hard decisions necessary to preserving the Union, whether in opposing the expansion of slavery, declaring war, changing generals, or issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. In the previous century, three presidents again demonstrated this confidence factor, the Roosevelts, and Ronald Reagan. Regardless of your politics, they inspired a nation with their own confidence and took us from the dark places into the light.

Unfortuately, Obama, a hot type, isn’t wired this way. In truth, he’s more Carteresque than vintage Lincoln. Compassion and equity surely have a place, but not when their offspring is paralysis.

Keeping the faith

In a recent riveting analysis of decision making by President Obama, Praising the Hostage Takers, liberal Paul Leob painfully laments the President’s overweening zeal for compromise.
Will Obama ever hold the Republicans accountable for their reckless and destructive actions? No matter how outrageous their demands, he keeps giving them legitimacy, first resisting, then compromising, then praising the result as bipartisanship. He’s forgotten the basic lesson of negotiation — you don’t hand everything over before you start, particularly to people who have utter contempt for your values and goals. He’s also forgotten the importance of fighting for your principles, so people have a reason to support you.

As I write, top brass from both parties are scrambling to come up with something feasible by Monday morning.  Ultimately, the parties will strike an agreement on easing the deficit crisis, though it’s likely to be bad news for most of us, with options for changing the cost-of living formula for social security, applying a means test to both, and eliminating the mortgage deduction among those on the table.  Meanwhile, no tax increase on incomes above $250, 000.  It’s no secret there’s been a massive transfer of wealth going on to the upper class for some time, ultimately creating something like what you have in South America: you’re basically poor or well off.  The upcoming scenario simply expedites that trend.

In my own case, a retired prof with a still working spouse, my own income from social security and a retirement annuity invested in over the years has been declining even as inflation heats up and Medicare premiums and deductibles soar.  Meanwhile, I’ve not received any cost-of-living payout in social security due to inflation in the last two years. That doesn’t stop the Feds from taxing my social security heavily, as they count my wife’s income as total family income.  It’s worse for others.

The scandal is that fifty percent of Americans pay no tax at all.  Family size, mortgage exemptions, low wages, etc., contribute to this scenario.  Unlike South America, in our country, the poor get attended to and the wealthy get their loopholes.  Wall Street and the banks get their bailouts.  You and I, the middle class, we’re the pack mules

But I want to get back to Obama.  In campaigning for the presidency, he posed as the people’s protector.  On the other hand, he hasn’t walked the talk since getting elected. Loeb, gives us a disturbing litany of what the President has “compromised” away:

Obama’s almost pathological devotion to compromise started early in his presidency. Republicans and a handful of corporate-funded Democrats used the Senate filibuster to block action on issue after critical issue. Instead of calling them to account and marshalling public pressure against them, Obama responded as if their intransigence was reasonable, giving them instant political cover. He did this on health care, financial regulation, and attempts to pass a sufficiently large economic stimulus. On climate change, he tried to prove his reasonableness by allowing offshore oil drilling (just before the BP oil disaster) while securing not a single vote in return. Republican Lindsay Graham was planning to offer precisely this enticement to convince borderline Senators to support at least some price on carbon, and said Obama effectively killed the bill by leaving him with nothing to offer people Obama similarly refused to take a firm stand on ending the Bush tax cuts, which he could have simply let expire. He’s now retreating on the debt ceiling battle, saying he might have to sign off on a deal that cuts spending now a the vague promise of reforming taxes later.

Anything to get the deficit ceiling raised:  erosion of social security, betrayal of the environment, continuation of the Bush tax cuts, perpetuation of corporate loopholes, et cetera ad infinitem! Obama might take a lesson from Ronald Reagan, who raised the deficit several times during his presidency.  Up against it on several occasions, the Great Communicator would take his case to the American people.  And he always won.

Mr. President, call the Tea Party bluff.  No deficit agreement?  So be it! We’ll get through, but the Tea Party won’t.

Mr. President, if nothing else, exercise your Constitution option.  Raise the deficit!  Pay the bills!

We don’t need a Chamberlain buying peace for now, mindless of tomorrow. You don’t betray the American people to placate the opposition.

You want to be liked?  I tell you this: Keep your promises and to paraphrase Carole King, “they’ll come running.”

Do nothing Congress: let’s hope

 

While at the vet office this morning having our cat’s nails trimmed, l picked up the local paper and read the front page national news story:  “New report warns social security and Medicare could run out of money even earlier than feared.”  I’m of course, as you are, well aware of the media’s capacity for alarmist reporting.  Anyway, what a lousy way to start off a Saturday meant for more pleasant things like doing some gardening or watching the Red-Sox-Yankee volatile match-up. 

Still, this matter of our nation’s financial ills, how it all happened, and what we might do to preempt its becoming a contagion is serious business that we can’t simply ignore without putting ourselves at considerable risk for a precarious future of escalating expenses concurrent with diminishing income.  Today’s news story only underscores our economic cancer.  We may not be able to even sustain two enormously successful entitlement programs:  Social Security and Medicare, both of which are now projected to be depleted by 2036, or a year earlier than anticipated. 

As to Medicare, representative Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) has unleashed a storm of controversy, proposing to slash 5.8 trillion in federal spending over the next decade.  Presently, and this is real sticker shock, our federal deficit is 14.3 trillion!  Ryan’s linchpins focus on revamping Medicare and Social Security.  Medicare recipients would receive vouchers to help pay their medical costs.  It’s conceivable that Medicare patients might ultimately fork-out 68% of their costs, versus 25% at present.

Right now, cutting back on entitlements is a brave thing to do, fraught with controversy, and perhaps so frightening to public constituencies that Republicans may have assured Obama’s second term in a landslide.  Almost by way of hypocrisy,  even the Tea Party, whose focus is reducing government taxes through reduced spending, bristles at the idea of cutting back on Medicare and Social Security, a recent poll indicating that 70% of them are opposed to such measures.

As it stands right now, we have several unpleasant options:

  Increase payroll taxes for both programs and remove the current salary cap for Social Security, presently set at $106,900.  Republicans are adamantly opposed.  Democrats also are reluctant, except for the President’s proposal to levy a 2% increase on incomes above $250,000.  One problem here:  in running for his first term, Obama pledged he wouldn’t raise taxes on those making less than $250,000.

 Cut benefits.  In order to keep these programs solvent, some have said that cutbacks in Social Security, for example, need to be made in the 15% range.  This is doubtless DOA.

Ironically, the Republicans (and I write as an Independent) are responsible for a good deal of the budget debacle.  House Speaker John Boehner has recently said that “if the President begins the discussion by saying we must increase taxes on the American people–as his budget does–my response will be clear:  tax increases are unacceptable and are a nonstarter.”  (The President is actually proposing an increase on just 2% of wage earners.)

Laurence Mitchell of the Economic Policy Institute, hits the nail on the head, commenting that “In a way, all of this debate, all of this bravery is largely about paying for the Bush tax cuts.”  The facts are that keeping the George W. Bush cuts through 2018 will cost 4.4 trillion in revenue with its reduction of the top marginal rate from 39.6 to 35%. 

Of course if the Congress does nothing about revenue, the Bush cuts will expire at the end of 2012, resulting in 75% of the deficit problem being erased over the next five years, according to David Leonard (“Do-Nothing Congress as a Cure.”  New York Times, Apr. 13, 2011).  Hey, that’s not a bad thing!

I personally think we should all–not just the wealthy–pay a fair share in taxes, and I don’t like the Obama political game of playing one economic class against another.  As I pointed out in an earlier entry (April 18), 40% of Americans pay no federal tax at all, apart from  payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

There’s no free lunch!  We all pay our share or we all sink together.

On the dilemmas of being a woman

 
You may have seen the recent news out of Bangladesh of the death of a 14-year old girl as a consequence of a public lashing meted out by community leaders applying Shakira law.  Hena Begum had complained she had been raped by her 40-year old married cousin, who later fled. Collapsing at the 70th lash of  the 120 designated. she died a short time later. 
 
The UN Population Fund suggests that up to 5000 women are victims of honor killings annually, but doesn’t specify Muslim perpetrators.  This is important because the truth is that violence against women transcends all ethnicities and economic denominators.  In our own country, the FBI’s Expanded Homicide Data of 2008 records 14,180 murders in the U. S., of which 930 were women and girls murdered by a family member.
 
But let’s also talk about rape.  Nearly 18 percent of American women have been raped or been victims of  a rape attempt, 22 %  of them under the age of 12 (Violence Against Women Survey, 2000).  The numbers are actually much higher.  Only 37 percent of victims report their rape to local police, according to the FBI.  Shockingly, only 1 of 20 rapists serves even a day in jail (Victimization Survey, 2005). 
 
Upwards of 50,000 women and children are trafficked into the U. S. annually for  sexual exploitation or forced labor (CIA, 2000).  Alas, slavery didn’t cease with the end of the Civil War, not for women at least.  Worldwide, 1 million children , mostly girls, enter into the sex trade annually (UNICEF).
 
Internationally, there exist selective abortion, infanticide, and neglect, mostly in Asian nations, resulting in some 60 million females having been denied life (UN Study on the Status of Women, 2000).
Genital mutilation is common in Africa and there women suffer a much higher rated of HIV incidence than males (UNICEF and UNAIDS, 2007).
 
In the undeveloped nations, many women are  denied access to education and its corollaries:  economic independence and smaller families.  In Afghanistan, the Taliban have aggressively destroyed schools set up to provide education access to girls.
 
Economic discrimination against women, both in the U. S. and abroad, abounds.  You can almost bet on it that whenever women are the majority work-force in places such as schools, fast food restaurants, and block stores, it will result in low wages.  There are exceptions such as in nursing and auto plants, thanks to a critical shortage and/or strong unions. It’s going to be really interesting how the present Wal-Mart discrimination suit before the U. S. Supreme Court turns out.
 
I haven’t  talked about the marriage and relationship sectors, where often as not, the woman performs double duty in holding-down a full-time job, then returning home to resume care of the children, cooking, and other domestic needs.  I know too many men who see women as primarily bedmates, mommies, and cooks.  Men tend to put looks high on their priority scale for a partner; women, less so, preferring sensitivity and intelligence.  Is it any wonder?
 
Mistreating women has been an endemic feature of male cultural history, whether  religious, political, economic, or domestic..  Unfortunately, we live in a world where those perceived as weak are continuously exploited:  women, children and animals.  For those of us who care, our challenge is to empower “earth’s disinherited” through protest, legislation, education, and economic sanction.  The struggle isn’t easy and the road is long, but every journey begins with the first step.

 

Why I like Natalie Portman

 

I confess to being a fan of Natalie Portman, Academy Award winner for her performance in Black Swan. Let me count the reasons why:

She’s a very good actress:  At age 13, she starred in the French film, Leon.  In 1997,  she played Anne Frank in the Broadway rendition.  In 2005, she won a Golden Globe Award  and was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress in Closer. This present year has seen spectacular successes:  a Golden Globes Award, Screen Actors Guild Award, BAFTA Award, and Academy Award for her stellar role in Black Swan.

I admire her intelligence:  After all, we’re talking about a Harvard graduate in psychology.  I like how she put it in a New York Post interview:  “I’d rather be smart than a movie star.”  She been a guest lecturer at Columbia. A lover of languages, she’s fluent  in English, French and Hebrew and has also studied Arabic, Japanese and German.  She’s taken graduate courses at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.  She’s also published professional articles in leading science journals.

I like her political beliefs:  She is a Democrat who campaigned for John Kerry in 2004, for Hillary Clinton in the New York primary, and Obama in 2008. 

I admire her social activism:  She’s devoted herself to helping eliminate poverty, traveling to Africa and Latin America to advocate micro-lending, a program to assist women in financing their own businesses.  She’s also spoken for this cause at several leading American universities.

I identify with her religious views:  In an interview with Rolling Stone (2006), She commented on whether there’s an afterlife, “I don’t believe in that. I believe this is it, and I believe it’s the best way to live.”  Although committed to her Jewish heritage (she’s a dual citizen of the U. S. and Israel), she thinks that good character and partnership are the primary staples in a love relationship.

I’m enthusiastic about her views on animals and vegetarianism:  Since childhood, she’s been committed to vegetarianism and became a vegan in 2009 after reading Safran Foer’s classic, Eating Animals.  She doesn’t wear furs, feathers or leather.  In 2007, she started her own  franchise for vegan footwear and in the same year participated in the filming of the documentary, Gorillas on the Brink in Rwanda.

She’s just plain nice to look at:  Need I say more?