New York Times Editorial, "The Senate Tries to End the Crisis": Leon Panetta for President?

In an editorial entitled "The Senate Tries to End the Crisis" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/opinion/the-senate-tries-to-end-the-crisis.html?_r=0), The New York Times tells us:

"The Senate, forced to extinguish the wildfire set by the House, is nearing a deal to reopen the government and end the imminent threat of default by the United States government. Some of the provisions in the deal are troubling, and senators need to ensure that it doesn’t in any way give in to Republican blackmail.

. . . .

But the tentative agreement includes two problematic provisions related to health care reform. One would require the Department of Health and Human Services to verify that people receiving subsidies for insurance have incomes low enough to qualify."

Of course, we wouldn't want to ensure that people receiving subsidies for insurance have incomes low enough to qualify. After all, we want to make certain that Obamacare is just as prone to fraud as Medicare.

Meanwhile, over at The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-leon-panetta-rebukes-obamas-handling-of-shutdown/2013/10/14/d5252dc4-34f9-11e3-be86-6aeaa439845b_story.html?tid=pm_pop), uber-liberal Ruth Marcus notes Leon Panetta's criticism of Obama's handling of the shutdown crisis. Marcus writes:

"Leon Panetta served in Washington with nine presidents, starting with Lyndon Johnson. He has been a member of Congress, Office of Management and Budget director, White House chief of staff, director of the Central Intelligence Agency and secretary of defense — the last two under President Obama. He is a man who knows Washington and knows how to choose his words. So Panetta’s implicit rebuke of the president’s hands-off approach to the budget crisis at a breakfast Monday was striking.

. . . .

'We govern either by leadership or crisis. . . . If leadership is not there, then we govern by crisis,' Panetta said at the start of the session, sponsored by The Wall Street Journal. 'Clearly, this town has been governing by crisis after crisis after crisis.'

. . . .

Then, to Obama. 'This president — he’s extremely bright, he’s extremely able, he’s somebody who I think certainly understands the issues, asks the right questions, and I think has the right instincts about what needs to be done for the country.'

Next came the 'but' — without a name but with a clear message. 'You have to engage in the process. This is a town where it’s not enough to feel you have the right answers. You’ve got to roll up your sleeves and you’ve got to really engage in the process . . . that’s what governing is all about.'"

And so, even Ruth Marcus has come to realize that Obama lacks leadership capabilities.

Marcus's conclusion:

"As to the notion that any proposal associated with Obama was inherently toxic to Republicans, Panetta said, 'If the president, for whatever reason, feels he can’t do it because the Republicans don’t want to confront him, then he ought to be willing to delegate that responsibility to someone who can do it.'

I’ve got a stellar candidate in mind. His name is Leon Panetta. He seems awfully happy back home in Monterey, Calif. But he also remembers the way to Andrews — and what it takes to get things done once you arrive."

If you are a regular reader of this blog, you know that I have been calling for round-the-clock negotiations to end the shutdown crisis (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/10/paul-krugman-dixiecrat-solution.html).

A "stellar candidate" to manage the shutdown negotiations? Heck, how about a stellar candidate to be the next president of the United States?

David Brooks, "The Policy Verdict I": No Mention of Medicare Fraud

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Policy Verdict I" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/opinion/brooks-the-policy-verdict-i.html), David Brooks observes that Medicare is bleeding the US white:

"Today, Medicare costs about $550 billion. By 2020, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it will cost more than $1 trillion, sucking money away from every other government program."

Regarding Obamacare, Brooks notes that "no one outside the employ of the president believes this approach will reduce Medicare costs." On the other hand, he believes that the Romney-Ryan market-based approach to the health care problem, allowing recipients to choose among competing insurance options, "might work."

In examining remedies for America's health care ills, Brooks, however, fails to mention the possibility of aggressively combating Medicare fraud, which costs the US some $60 billion annually. It would not be difficult to tackle this problem.

Computerized programs, adapted to standardized treatment for specific medical conditions, would have little difficulty pointing to anomalies. The system could be up and running in months.

In addition, penalties for Medicare fraud could be stiffened, causing those with thoughts of bilking the system to reconsider the consequences of their actions.

In short, it is remarkable how both Obama and Romney have ignored this "fix," which does not cure the problem in its entirety, but certainly deserves immediate implementation.

Paul Krugman, "The Medicare Killers": Krugman on the Verge of an Apoplectic Fit

Yesterday, it was little less than remarkable to observe the titles of the various opinion pieces appearing on the home page of The Washington Post pertaining to Paul Ryan's speech at the Republican Party's Tampa convention: "Mr. Ryan’s misleading speech," "Will Paul Ryan's dishonesty matter to voters?," "Which of Ryan’s distortions in his speech to the Republican National Convention were the worst?," "Paul Ryan’s breathtakingly dishonest speech," and "Ryan: Flunking his own test."

Goodness gracious, Paul Ryan must be the Devil incarnate.

Not to be outdone by WaPo's columnists, Paul Krugman joins the attack against the Republican vice presidential candidate with an apoplectic op-ed entitled "The Medicare Killers" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/opinion/Krugman.html). Informing us that Ryan’s speech "finally may have dispelled the myth that he is a Serious, Honest Conservative," Krugman calls Ryan's voucher system for the purchase of medical insurance a "big lie" and a "terrible, terrible thing."

However, as acknowledged by the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees in its Summary of the 2012 Annual Reports (http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html), funding of both Social Security and Medicare faces dire challenges. As observed by the Boards of Trustees:

"Lawmakers should address the financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will leave more options and more time available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare."

Is Ryan "dishonest," a "fraud" and a "liar"? Nah. Although his proposed solutions to the pending Medicare crisis demand discussion, even the Boards of Trustees of Social Security and Medicare recognize that concrete steps to trim the deficits must come immediately. You can disagree vigorously with the specifics of Ryan's plans, but his initiative, which has shaken the federal government and national media from their fool's paradise, can only be deemed commendable.

David Brooks, "Guide for the Perplexed": Is Brooks Also an "Unserious Man"?

Returning to the New York Times op-ed page after a short break, David Brooks writes in "Guide for the Perplexed" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/opinion/brooks-guide-for-the-perplexed.html):

"By picking Paul Ryan as his running mate, Romney has put Medicare at the center of the national debate. Possibly for the first time, he has done something politically perilous. He has made it clear that restructuring Medicare will be a high priority.

This is impressive. If you believe entitlement reform is essential for national solvency, then Romney-Ryan is the only train leaving the station.

Moreover, when you look at the Medicare reform package Romney and Ryan have proposed, you find yourself a little surprised. You think of them of as free-market purists, but this proposal features heavy government activism, flexibility and rampant pragmatism."

Now compare this language with that of Paul Krugman in his New York Times op-ed yesterday, "An Unserious Man" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/opinion/krugman-an-unserious-man.html):

"Ryanomics is and always has been a con game, although to be fair, it has become even more of a con since Mr. Ryan joined the ticket.

. . . .

So will the choice of Mr. Ryan mean a serious campaign? No, because Mr. Ryan isn’t a serious man — he just plays one on TV."

This is indeed perplexing.

I suppose Krugman thinks that Brooks is also "unserious," but this should come as no surprise. Krugman is the only "serious" person out there, and if you have any doubts in this regard, just ask Krugman.

But back for a moment to Brooks's opinion piece, in which he observes:

"In 1962, 14 cents of every federal dollar not going to interest payments were spent on entitlement programs. Today, 47 percent of every dollar is spent on entitlements. By 2030, 61 cents of every noninterest dollar will be spent on entitlements.

Entitlement spending is crowding out spending on investments in our children and on infrastructure. This spending is threatening national bankruptcy. It’s increasing so quickly that there is no tax increase imaginable that could conceivably cover it. And, these days, the real entitlement problem is Medicare."

At the risk of also being labeled "unserious," by Krugman, I agree with Brooks.

However, I would like to ask Brooks and Krugman why they both ignore America's meaningless ground involvement in Afghanistan, which has cost the US the lives of more than 1,800 military personnel and some $443 billion (see: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-01/obama-in-afghanistan-to-sign-accord-on-future-u-s-role.html), of which $120 billion was spent in 2011 alone (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/us/politics/22costs.html?pagewanted=all). Yes, Obama now owns this war.

Or am I again being "unserious"?

Paul Krugman, "Broccoli and Bad Faith": No Mention of Medicare Fraud

Yes, I do believe in universal health care; however, I am also appalled when commentators like Paul Krugman ascribe bad faith to Supreme Court justices who dare to question the constitutionality of Obamacare. Moreover, whereas I believe in universal health care, I also believe that America's health care system has been rendered terminally ill by Medicare fraud, which costs the government some $60 billion each year. I view Obamacare as an expensive, ill conceived patch to a faulty mechanism that is hemorrhaging money.

In his New York Times op-ed entitled "Broccoli and Bad Faith" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/opinion/krugman-broccoli-and-bad-faith.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Krugman informs us that Justice Scalia's comparison between the
purchase of health insurance and the purchase of broccoli is inapt:

"When people choose not to buy broccoli, they don’t make broccoli unavailable to those who want it. But when people don’t buy health insurance until they get sick — which is what happens in the absence of a mandate — the resulting worsening of the risk pool makes insurance more expensive, and often unaffordable, for those who remain. As a result, unregulated health insurance basically doesn’t work, and never has."

Sorry, Paul, but I disagree. When people buy Cheetos, Twinkies, Bacon and Bud instead of broccoli, they are indeed worsening the risk pool and making insurance more expensive. Does this mean that the federal government should be allowed to demand the purchase of, or subsidize, broccoli, while banning or penalizing sales of Cheetos? If the government were to seek to deprive me of my ice cream habit, I would probably take up arms.

Bottom line: I am less concerned with the Supreme Court decision, and more concerned with the fact that the system is "broken" and requires a major overhaul. Obamacare, constitutional or not, only aggravates a problem that threatens the US with financial collapse, which could deny health care to all Americans.

Paul Krugman, "Free to Die": Heartless Republicans

Paul Krugman today lambasts Republican's for their willingness to cut Medicaid and Medicare benefits in his New York Times op-ed entitled "Free to Die" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/opinion/krugman-free-to-die.html?_r=1&hp). Krugman tells us that Republicans lack compassion as a matter of principle:

"Given the agreed-upon desirability of protecting citizens against the worst, the question then became one of costs and benefits — and health care was one of those areas where even conservatives used to be willing to accept government intervention in the name of compassion, given the clear evidence that covering the uninsured would not, in fact, cost very much money. As many observers have pointed out, the Obama health care plan was largely based on past Republican plans, and is virtually identical to Mitt Romney’s health reform in Massachusetts.

Now, however, compassion is out of fashion — indeed, lack of compassion has become a matter of principle, at least among the G.O.P.’s base."

That's pretty easy even for a lummox like me to remember: Democrats good, Republicans bad. It even rings similar to "Four legs good, two legs bad!"

A fly in the ointment? Always. In a September 13 article in Krugman's own newspaper (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/politics/obamas-expected-plan-for-entitlement-savings-worries-democrats.html), Robert Pear wrote:

"As Congress opens a politically charged exploration of ways to pare the deficit, President Obama is expected to seek hundreds of billions of dollars in savings in Medicare and Medicaid, delighting Republicans and dismaying many Democrats who fear that his proposals will become a starting point for bigger cuts in the popular health programs.

The president made clear his intentions in his speech to a joint session of Congress last week when, setting forth a plan to create jobs and revive the economy, he said he disagreed with members of his party 'who don’t think we should make any changes at all to Medicare and Medicaid.'

Few Democrats fit that description. But many say that if, as expected, Mr. Obama next week proposes $300 billion to $500 billion of savings over 10 years in entitlement programs, he will provide political cover for a new bipartisan Congressional committee to cut just as much or more.

And, they say, such proposals from the White House will hamstring Democrats who had been hoping to employ Medicare as a potent issue against Republicans in 2012 campaigns after many Congressional Republicans backed a budget that would have substantially altered Medicare by providing future beneficiaries with a subsidy to enroll in private health care plans."

Now I'm confused. Will we soon be hearing, "Four legs good, two legs better"?

Paul Krugman's "Messing With Medicare": Hell Hath No Fury Like a Krugman Scorned

Reading through Paul Krugman's latest New York Times op-ed, "Messing With Medicare" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/opinion/25krugman.html?ref=opinion), one is initially led to believe that we are contemplating "same old, same old": yet another variation on Krugman's irate criticism of attempts to rein in federal spending at a time when the economy is tanking.

And then, three paragraphs from the bottom, comes the surprise:

"So why is the president embracing these bad policy ideas? In a forthcoming article in The New York Review of Books, the veteran journalist Elizabeth Drew suggests that members of the White House political team saw the 2010 election as a referendum on government spending and that they believe that cutting spending is the way to win next year."

Furious with Obama, Krugman is letting us know that the president's nascent desire to cut spending is no more than an unscrupulous political ploy designed to win him reelection.

Actually, this should come as less than a bolt from the blue. With almost no achievements under his belt heading toward 2012, Obama is doing what he does best, i.e. positioning and campaigning.

Although Krugman appears to think that he is smarter than the rest of us, how is it that this Nobel Prize winner didn't see this coming?

To quote and garble a misquote: "Hell hath no fury like a Krugman scorned."