Brain-Jockey

July 1st in Iraq: A Soldier’s Perspective

Written by Audrie Zettick on June 26, 2009

I just received this email via my church choir’s prayer chain.  It gives you some perspective on the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

“I try not to talk about everything that’s going on here cause its really hard,even to think about, and as of the 1st of July it’s only going to get worse. The government is pulling all combat troops out of the major cities surrounding us, leaving us “unprotected.”  The rocket and motar attacks are getting more frequent, just last night we took small arms fire with insurgants trying to get on base.  I’m not telling you this to worry you, I’m just telling you so you keep praying for me and everyone here.  Pray for the families of the soldiers who have died here, 3 since I’ve been here, not from my company or even my state but the hurt their families are going through now!”

Please pray for our troops, their safety and for wisdom to prevail as leaders make decisions regarding the withdrawal.  

Cap and Tax: Need Truth in Polling

Written by Audrie Zettick on June 25, 2009

Nancy Pelosi is leading the charge to get Democrats in Congress to rush passage of H.R. 2454–The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009-before they jet back to their districts. Let not wisdom, deliberate debate and growing public opposition stand in the way of their July vacation (and increase in their carbon footprint).

When asked innocuous questions like “do you support government regulation to reduce greenhouse gases from cars and factories,” three-quarters of Americans purportedly agree.  Heck, I do when worded that way.  Some members of my family have asthma–we’re sensitive to air pollution and stay inside on “ozone action days.”

When polls go on to ask pesky things such as if they’d be willing to pay more for electricity in order to reduce carbon emissions, support for Cap and Trade drops to 52%.

Of course you have to consider that in May, polls showed few people–24% of voters– even knew what cap and trade was.

Imagine if the full truth were asked.  Such as if each poll respondent had to complete this estimate of the personal impact of Cap and Trade.  Or if estimates for outlying years were considered (after 2012).  The bill’s been watered down to minimize impact in the early years, to gain moderate Democrat support.  But when you begin to estimate costs beyond 2012, the financial impact is more pronounced.

American taxpayers better gird their loins for a major change in lifestyle, if Cap and Tax passes.  The Tax Foundation notes that “Lawmakers weighing the costs and benefits of climate policy should be aware that cap and trade would impose a significant and regressive annual burden on U.S. households.” With many households just getting by financially, and with the future tax burden of the bailouts on the horizon, this is ill advised.

My main concern is with the broad impact of vastly higher electricity and gas prices.  President Obama has  himself admitted that “electricity costs will skyrocket” under cap and trade.  See video.

I can envision school taxes rising as districts deal with increased energy costs–for buildings, busing and food.   I know my food bill will rise, impacted by increased energy costs for production.

The Wall Street Journal today refutes the fictional estimates recently released by the CBO.  The Heritage Foundation estimates that cap and trade will cost American families $3,000 per year.

Here’s a better–and more accurate– poll question:

“Would you support an increase in your electricity, gas, school taxes, food items, clothing and general living expenses in order to cap carbon emissions?”

Or perhaps “If your costs go up $3,000 per year, what will you give up first: vacation, braces for your kids, date nights with your spouse, dental work, home renovations, car or electronics purchases.”

Now THAT would make for interesting poll results.

Pardon My French

Written by Audrie Zettick on June 15, 2009

The downside of being a policy and politics blogger is that it’s tough to really take a vacation.  No matter where I’ve been for my family sojourn the past two weeks—travelling through New England, hoofing it up to the Citadelle in French Quebec—I’ve been drawn to things that are writing prompts.  

I was strolling through the upper olde town portion of Quebec (within the walls of the original fortification).  Graffiti is not prominent, but I had just passed “Quebec e Liberte” scrawled on one wall—Quebec Independence.  The Governour Generale of Canada had made a rare appearance at her quarters there, and a supporter of independence took advantage of the event to make his passion known. Hopefully, this was a youthful exuberance by a supporter of Parti Québécois or of Bloc Québécois , not a sign of activity of the almost-but-not-quite-defunct FLQ, a Marxist-leaning and violent organization of previous eras. The PQ and BQ are left-leaning but focused on either independence or protection of the French language, not blowing up coffee shops.  This reminded me of a conversation I had on the previous day with a German couple–sorry, just couldn’t help myself–about countries having official languages (like the U.S. English movement).  I was enjoying using my French but couldn’t help discussing what language differences could do to the unity of a country.  Again, my propensity for political thought trumped all. 

Further down the street, as I was admiring the many street cafes on this sunny afternoon, I spied this graffiti:     

If you can’t read it, it says  

Americans in Deep S@#%  A.i.d.s. 

A decidedly French-Canadian spin on the current American economic and spending situation.  And with the state of the debate on Obama’s budget and the forecasted impact of the ballooning national debt, I’d say I agree.

Brain Food

Written by Audrie Zettick on June 1, 2009

Those of you who follow me on Twitter may already have read these articles.  Consider them brain food on current issues.

• In Pravda, the state news of Russia, an article called “American Capitalism Gone With A Whimper.”  While some things are overstated, it gives an interesting perspective of current events in the U.S. from outside eyes. A bit of a wake-up call.

• In Smart Girl Nation, an article by Dr. Richard G. Fessler debunking the World Health Organization’s ranking of the U.S.’s health care system, showing how their calculations are biased against the U.S.  Numbers aren’t always what they seem at first glance.

Feed your brain.  Think for yourself.  Pass it on.

Duty to Die: Is It Plan B?

Written by Audrie Zettick on May 21, 2009

Some say 70 is the new 50.  I say if we are not careful, 2009 may be the new 1984 and seniors may have much to worry about.  So far this year, we’ve had federal policymakers begin to dictate what we can and cannot drive, seek to inject government into labor contracts via the Employee “Free” Choice Act, and express their desire to explore ways to make “reasonable mandatory service requirements“ for young people.  Can dictates about health care be far away?

You may know our health care system needs some tweaking–you know costs seem out of control–but you’re quite happy with your own employer-provided health care plan.  Maybe–despite being quite intelligent–it just all seems too complicated to pay much notice.

Time to notice. This will affect you in some way.  And it’s likely to come sooner than later, as Congressional Democrats are working under a self-imposed July 31 deadline for passage of any health care reform.

Proposals from Left to Right 

Proposals run the gamut and are under constant development.  On the far left, we have those of the liberal bent (exemplified by Rep. Peter Stark) who, in search of universal health care coverage, carve a large role for a government-provided plan, even automatically enrolling all newborns.  On the center left, we have proposals like the Democrats’ mandated insurance proposal, where a requirement to have health care would apply to individuals and employers would be required to foot more of the bill.  Tax penalties apply to those who don’t comply, and the government takes on an increasing role in setting insurance rules.  Somewhere in the middle are plans like Sen. Wyden’s, which recognize that the private sector must play a large role.  On the center right, we have the Republicans, whose just-released proposal is heavy on consumer choice, with a touch of reality-driven government regulation.  On the far right are proposals that leave total choice up to the consumer, through expanded options like health savings plans–already available to many if they hold a high deductible insurance plan and health .   

Duty To Die

President Obama has laid out 8 principles of health care reform that on their face appear balanced, but his 3 bedrock principles leave much wiggle room, and lead with Cost Containment.  I can’t argue with cost containment in principle, as a former small business owner who watched our health plan premiums skyrocket.  But with Obama’s health care plan estimated to start at $634 billion and rise from there, there is extreme pressure for cost savings.  I’m concerned that any effort to control costs doesn’t digress into a public policy where government makes the choices about significant aspects of our health care.  

The stimulus package already included a favorite of President Obama–Comparative Effectiveness Research–designed to rein in costs to allow expansion of health care coverage for all.  Used correctly, a database of most effective treatments could be a godsend to doctors and consumers alike.  In the hands of a government-run health care program, it could slip into a cost-saving debacle, denying options and coverage to consumers.  Some speculate that the elderly would bear the brunt of this approach. 

It’s a real issue, since Duty to Die is a real philosophy, discussed in many ethics textbooks and proposed by respected academics (see here and here ).  While some scoff that critics are misrepresenting Comparative Effectiveness Research, it’s wise to watch for the slippery slope, since some experts have specifically suggested the following:

•  “there is a moral duty to die inexpensively in healthcare contexts.” J. Angelo Corlett, Professor of Philosophy,  Health Care Analysis, “Is There a Moral Duty to Die,” Nov. 2, 2004.  Corlett based his theory on Paul Menzel’s theory of health care distribution (Menzel is author of “Strong Medicine: The Ethical Rationing of Health Care”)
• “Even very young children can understand that medical costs can quickly absorb money that could otherwise be put aside for college education or a family vacation, for example.”  (Judith Lee Kissell, PhD; professor of bioethics)

To this genre of  philosophers and bioethicists, the duty to die is social policy–based on a view that medicine can be used as a mechanism for a more equal distribution of wealth and resources. 

This is a departure from other physicians who discuss this issue of limited resources.  When discussing medicare funding challenges, doctor Kenneth Prager is more measured, recognizing the challenge of limited resources, but noting that the “proper approach to an aging population that consumes ever more health care dollars is not to cut their access to care arbitrarily but to develop a multifaceted approach that emphasizes patient and physician education about what medical care is helpful and what is not…”

What’s Already In Place

Worry not, you say.  A federal Duty-to-Die policy would never happen.  Perhaps not. The Stimulus Bill created a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.  Original language was changed to insert words like “clinical” and eliminate any references to cost control because of an outcry regarding these issues.  I agree with Media Matters that the stimulus bill never contained language dictating that knowledge about Comparative Effectiveness be used to prohibit certain treatments.  HHS says that ”The Council will not recommend clinical guidelines for payment, coverage or treatment.” Specifically, the Stimulus Bill says: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Council to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer.”  Call it semantics, but when we use the term “mandate” we usually mean things the government requires us to DO, not what they don’t allow us to do. 

Semantics aside, it would be entirely possible for another government entity–tasked with cost containment–to take the data compiled as a legitimate part of comparative effectiveness and use it to craft other cost-containing policies that limit coverage.  This is more tempting to invoke the tighter the U.S. gets squeezed by health care coverage costs.

Do the Math

The Council is modeled after Tom Daschle’s references to a U.K board–The National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness  (hat tip Betsy McCaughy at Bloomberg) which “approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.”  This is known as Quality Adjusted Life Year calculations.

Couple this health care framework with statements about saving money,  and we’re closer to the slippery slope.

I have a 91 year-old-grandfather who wielded a table saw last summer to help with a home project and still drove (safely…really) until last month, when a sudden onset of cataracts limited his mobility.  Would a government bureaucracy tell him he couldn’t have his cataract surgery this month, because after all, it makes no sense since he’s near the end of life? If the cataracts had come on at 85 or 89, would a decision have differed?  Health care decisions need to be made on a case-by-case basis.  

I’m not the only one concerned with putting road blocks in place to prevent a slide to Duty to Die.  A group of moderate, business-oriented Democrats just release their own proposal –H.R. 2505–to reshape Obama’s Federal Council, now composed entirely of Federal bureaucrats.  The goal of their Council would be to ensure that “medical decisions remain between physicians and patients.”  Even former Congressman Tony Coelho — chair of the Partnership To Improve Patient Care and certainly not a conservative–voiced his worry that cost containment will become the main goal of the Federal Council in its current form.  While this legislation contains some language regarding examining health expenditures associated with a “health condition or the use of a particular medical treatment, service, or item,” the remaining language makes it clear this new nongovernmental Council would focus on patient health and well-being, and the quality of care.  I view this bill as a guardrail to prevent health care reform (in whatever form) from careening off the cliff and down the slippery slope.

Health care reform is too important to leave the details to Washington without our voices being heard.  Regardless of the ultimate shape of health care reform, we must make certain “Duty to Die” never sees the light of day, setting roadblocks in the way of health care rationing.

My Big Fat Check: Truth-In-Politicking

Written by Audrie Zettick on May 14, 2009

I had a dream. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was presenting AIG and GM with an humongous size presentation check for their bailout bucks, signed by “U.S. Taxpayers.”  At the last minute, I stepped forward exclaiming, ”call the Feds and put a stop on that check.  I withdraw my signature.”  Then I noticed Geithner was holding a rubber chicken and wearing boxer shorts emblazoned with SpongeBob–and realized I was dreaming.  

In Pennsylvania, one legislator has a related idea (not related to the no-pants thing): make it mandatory to show that it’s taxpayers footing the bill when ceremonial checks are presented by state government officials and legislators.  Representative Jim Cox (R-Berks County) has introduced House Bill 596, the Presentation Check Act, which affects those big, made-for-photo op checks that legislators and others present to local groups, in advance of getting state funding.  Usually, the fake check has a signature line emblazoned with the elected official’s name.  Everyone knows it’s really state money, but we all play along, smile and are thankful to get the funds.

Of course, I’m less worried about the physical size of a check than the fiscal size of a check.  With the national debt estimated to zoom to over 82% of GDP as a result of the Obama budget, our kids will be stuck with the tab–whether or not these checks say “paid by U.S. Taxpayer.”  

A lot of presentations checks in the future may have to be rubber ones.  Maybe the rubber chicken in my dream was a prognostication.

Hedge Manager Dares to Speak Out On Obama

Written by Audrie Zettick on May 6, 2009

A departure from my usual longer posts (and something I’ll be doing more of). 

Here’s something worth reading and viewing, given President Obama’s bashing of Hedge Fund managers who supposedly held up the Chrysler bankruptcy because they wanted more than 30 cents on the dollar for their clients.  No matter what your view on Wall Street, hedge funds and big business, it’s worth the listen.

Raising Radicals

Written by Audrie Zettick on May 6, 2009

Teen

It’s every conservative mother’s dream. You know, raising a radical. No, I’m not talking about a Saul Alinsky type. I’m talking kids that think for themselves. They might not always agree with you but they won’t be drinking anybody else’s koolaid© either.

In the Urban Dictionary, a good definition of radical is “a person subscribing to a political ideology supporting massive, unmeasured, and rapid change.” The definition contrasts radicalism with conservatism, which is defined as a philosophy that advocates minimum change. In today’s society, conservatives ARE the radicals and to be one requires thinking for yourself.

I’m not claiming to be a perfect parent. Many uses of duct tape have crossed my mind more than once when dealing with an out-of-control 7- year old. But last week, I had confirmation that I’d done some things “right.” Dear daughter, age 15, and I were conversing about voter registration—more accurately, I was talking while driving, she was mumbling at the speed of light.

In typical teen fashion, she rolled her eyes then mumbled something about how ALL the kids turning 18 were registering Democrat.

Well, I said, all they’ve known in their lifetime is George Bush, John McCain and Barack Obama via the mainstream media. Can you really blame them? With disdain, she blurted, “Yeah, well, they didn’t do their homework.”

Their bad. My good. A daughter who thinks.

And it wasn’t the first time. She recently came home from school, ready to exercise the new synapses created that day in her brain. Her American Cultures class was studying the Great Depression. “Mom, did you know that some people actually think the New Deal programs ended the depression. Duh….. It was WWII that did.” (Eyeballs rolling).

Yeah, I’ll settle for “duh.” Duh here means “that’s so lame, he/she is such a doofus.”

In short, how do we grow kids who question today’s group-think mentality and conventional wisdom? Here’s a short list.

• Have Issues. Use everyday observations of everyday life to discuss how people make decisions and the repercussions of those decisions. Since my kids were babies, we’ve discussed how there are often unintended yet logical consequences to decisions, whether made by individuals or the government. 
• Don’t Preach. Yes, this one’s tough, especially if you’re passionate about your issues. But preaching can drive anyone to the other side. Rather than preach, layout your thinking to your kids, at whatever level they are ready for. Contrast it with the other side of the issue. My 7 year old and my 15 year old have both heard me describe issues to them, whether abortion, voting, taxes or the like–but in different language. 
• If you’ve ever changed your mind on an issue, admit it. Right and wrong doesn’t evolve, but it’s good for kids to know that positions on issues can evolve, as facts become known and understanding deepens. And frankly, it makes mom and dad seem more human. (And really, don’t you hope all those folks who voted for Obama, support abortion on demand or were initially grateful for government bailouts will someday rethink their positions?) 
• Moderate media and other “inputs.” It’s your job to counterbalance what your kids are exposed to in news media, entertainment and academia. Sometimes, that may means avoiding it altogether, but often it means being there to explain what is being viewed, said or done and offer your perspective. Call me anal, but until recently, I read every book my daughter had to read in school, as well as popular fiction like Harry Potter, in case she wanted to read it. 
• But don’t censor. Teaching a kid to think for themselves means letting them see the other side (when appropriate, of course). Frankly, anyone can hold up their end of the argument better if they know how the other side frames their argument. I’ve taught history of science where I’ve had both evolutionists and creationists in class–I defend both of their rights’ to believe and advance their position. Sadly, I’ve had creationists confide to me privately that they don’t want to know or care about evolution. I challenge them: learn to better advance and defend your position by knowing the opposition.

I could have censored Harry Potter, purposefully keeping my daughter from reading it–after all, we do attend an evangelical church–but I didn’t. We talked through the controversy, discussing underlying themes, our beliefs, how some were interpreting the book, using it to advance different agendas, etc. I ended up liking and reading the entire series; she had no interest and didn’t read a word of it. (Of course, what adolescent really wants to read what their mom is reading anyway–perhaps this is a good strategy?).

The most important thing: get them involved. I grew up with a role model–my mother–who started a local taxpayers’ group and went on to be the first woman elected county commissioner. Even without going on to such lofty heights, we can show our kids that their opinions and voices matter and they can make a difference. My daughter went with me to the Harrisburg Tax Day Tea Party, where we were interviewed by the local ABC affiliate. We’re both “Smart Girls” (see here on Smart Girl Politics and Smart Girl Nation).

And, by the way, duct tape came in useful that day too. It’s great for the construction of radical protest signs.

May Day: Lovely Day for Anarchy & Reminder of Our Republic

Written by Audrie Zettick on April 30, 2009

Growing up in the U.S., May Day was a sort of unofficial holiday where we welcomed the spring season.  Not so much in other countries, where May Day has evolved into a Labour holiday, a time for protest.  And we’re not talking well-behaving tea party attendees.

The Wall Street Journal opines about what these protests hold in store (”Burn, Capitalism, Burn”)- which we may know by the time you read this.   (Some articles on violent protests here and here and link to Reuters slide show here).

All this serves as a reminder of the slippery slope from disruptive, violent protest to anarchy to total government, where the people have lost their rights.  An irony, since often anarchy begins because the common folk feel powerless and seek to be heard or recognized. 

On this May Day, take this video to heart.

I Want My SUV: More Unintended Consequences On The Horizon

Written by Audrie Zettick on April 27, 2009

Being involved in government policy making is like watching sausage being made: after you’ve seen it done, you want no part of it. 

Guess that’s why I managed to escape my policy stints in some of the world’s largest government bureaucracies with a modicum of increased wisdom based on experience and a healthy dose of skepticism about government.  Among my lessons: 

Always assume your first try at a new policy won’t go as planned.  Triple the probability of it going wrong if you’re hell-bent on rocketing warp speed toward change. 

For good or ill (and usually for ill), there will be unintended consequences. Among many misfires we have had this year:

·         Banks on the dole.  Call it corporate welfare, bailout or stimulus, I was amused to see the supposedly strange (but predictable) behavior of some financial institutions: buying jets, remodeling offices and the like. (Reminder at old Slate article here:  I See Dead Bankers! Wall Street has become The Sixth Sense-filled with corpses who think they’re still alive.)

·         A knee jerk reaction as the U.S. House passed a bill requiring a whopping 90% tax on bonuses at AIG and other institutions that took TARP money–but it turns out many of these folks were working under a retention contract which promised them pay after they stayed a set length of time…and many were with the financially-healthy subsidiaries of AIG. So are we surprised when the talent needed at companies like this flee? Or that other financial institutions, hesitant to face micromanagement by the feds are scurrying to pay back TARP funds rather than stick with the Obama plan?  Oh, then there’s that problem with the bill being unconstitutional.

·         U.S. automakers GM and Chrysler had to be thrown multiple lifelines in the form of $17.4 billion to avoid bankruptcy, but it’s only the threat of that very bankruptcy that has resulted in movement toward hauling in labor and healthcare costs (see Chrysler in Canada here). 

Which leads me to the next unintended outcome of any new “economic stimulus” measures:  The success of car companies like KIA. 

With the U.S. government at the helm of GM and Chrysler, market forces go out the window.  President Obama has made it clear that he will “remake” the U.S. auto industry, ”forcing” consumers into smaller cars that are clean, economical and green.  During his campaign, he scolded auto makers for focusing on popular SUVS and not cars with improved fuel efficiency.     

Yet, KIA is currently building their first U.S. auto plant where their value-priced SUV, the Sorento, will be built.  My neighbors, many of whom had trailers hooked to their big SUVs at the recycling center this past Saturday to pick up free mulch, will be glad to know at least one company will still provide an SUV.