Ron at Hope Hospice

My father has been battling various illnesses for the last year - In January he got a heart stent and most recently he underwent an amazing valve replacement operation - but after that he started falling apart and has been mostly hospitalized for the past month.



He has been moved to Hope Hospice and he's not expected to recover.

I found his piece on the Affordable Health Care Act in his drafts folder tonight.

I saw that he'd tried to post that piece to his blog, typing with his two fingers, but the technology defeated him, and me, his editor, was buried on something else, not paying attention, and he never got around to asking me to fix it.

So I just fixed it up and posted it.

My father could afford the best in health care for himself, but he fought hard, for it, here, because he wanted the best in health care for everyone.

He wanted a better society, one safer for women, and for people to remember the lessons of the Great Depression, and the truths of the recent recession.

I'm trapped in California and can't make it there until Saturday. I have so much enjoyed seeing my dad blossom as a writer, this past year was the first time since I was a boy where we could collaborate, rather than argue. And his joy when he could finally get all of his thoughts published, uncut, was overwhelming, as was mine, in his.

He has so many stories left in him to tell, that I only half remember.

The affordable health care act

On March 23^rd2010, President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) into law. On that date there were 50 million Americans without medical insurance. Insurance companies were permitted to refuse coverage for preexisting conditions. Insurance companies could place limits on how much they would spend in a year and over the life of the policy. Children were eliminated from coverage under their parent’s policies when they graduated from college or became independent while the act allows children to stay on their parent’s policy until they are 26 whether they were independent or not. Millions of seniors still can’t afford the drugs they need despite Medicare part D. The ACA gradually eliminates the doughnut hole until it disappears in 2020. These problems and a great many more were addressed in this Act.

This law was opposed by Republicans and supported by Democrats. The Act Passed in the house on March 21^st 2010 by a vote of 219 to 212 and while 34 Democrats voted against the bill, not one Republican voted for it. The Senate passed the bill with 58 Democrats and two independents voting for it while all 39 Republicans voted against it.

From its introduction until today the Republicans have attacked the bill.

They started with death panels although there weren’t any.

Then they said it would increase the deficit even though the bipartisan CBO found that it would reduce the deficit by 50 billion dollars over 10 years. The Republicans don’t talk about the various revenue raising measures that the Act contains including a surcharge on our richest 0.3%.

Next they said that it will eliminate jobs although once again the CBO found that it would have very little effect on employment.

Lastly they argued that because the ACA requires everyone to either buy health insurance or pay a penalty (The Individual Mandate), that it is unconstitutional. It is interesting that the act was designed in accordance with the suggestions of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and many Republican legislators when they were fighting Clinton’s attempt to provide universal health care in the 90’s.

Now 26 states have brought a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the act. It is no surprise that every one of these states is controlled by Republicans. I think back over all the major legislation that has been passed in my lifetime (I go back to the 40’S) and cannot think of one that was not adopted with some bipartisan support.

The Civil Rights Acts and Medicare received broad bipartisan support.

Even the Bush tax cuts of 2001 had substantial Democratic support. While only 2 Democrats voted for the tax reconciliation Act of 2003 it would not have passed without their support.

It is hard to believe that not one Republican member of the House or Senate found this law to be in the best interest of the people. I believe their unanimous and organized attacks were instead an attempt to gain political advantage at the expense of the people.

Now the question is before the Supreme Court. These nine ladies and gentlemen are supposed to decide based on the law. Does anyone believe they will? Beginning with their decision in Bush V Gore the majority on this court has demonstrated its loyalty to the Republicans who appointed them. In Citizens United the court extended the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections as free speech by corporations (overruling two prior decisions) which generally support Republicans. Once again the Republican appointees voted the Republican way.

The Court’s approval rating has fallen to 46% while its disapproval rating has climbed to 40%. I wonder what it will be if it finds the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional?

That decision will leave 50 million Americans without health care insurance. It will leave those with preexisting conditions without coverage. It will leave many of our children and more of the poor without medical care, and seniors will continue to struggle to pay for their medicine, without the help provided by the ACA.

How can so many people fail to recognize the importance of this legislation to so many struggling Americans?

A Republican War on Women

The Republicans seem to be waging a war on women.

First they tried to cut the federal contribution to Planned Parenthood, the largest health care provider to poor women. Then they attacked the Obama administration for requiring employers to provide health insurance which includes contraception for women. They have introduced legislation in the house which would permit any company to deny access to no cost birth control regardless of religious affiliation.

The Republicans in Virginia have introduced a bill that will require a women to have inter vaginal ultrasound before having an abortion and a bill which would provide that life begins at conception (more on this story later)

Arizona is in the process of passing a law requiring women to advise their employer why she needs contraception (which must be for something other than preventing pregnancy) before their health insurance will provide it.

Pa. has passed a law requiring not only an ultrasound but also requiring her Dr to explain what it shows while keeping it in her sight lines The Republican governor said it didn’t compel her to see it because “she could always shut her eyes”. 

Now they are trying to stop Congress from passing the Violence against Women Act. This is basically the same bill that was approved with bipartisan support in 1995 and was reauthorized in 2000 and 2005. In 2005 it passed the Senate unanimously. Why did they like it then but not now?

The act passed in the Senate Judiciary Committee but by a vote along party lines. Not one Republican voted in favor of it. It also sounds like it will be difficult if not impossible to get the 60 votes it will need to pass in the Senate. 

I spent a large part of my working life as a prosecutor and judge in the lower courts. One of the major problems we dealt with was domestic violence. I don’t know how many phone calls I received at 1:00 or 2:00 o’clock in the morning, which seemed to be the time that drunken husbands arrived home to beat up their wife or girl friend. The calls were to determine whether a restraining order should be issued and what the terms of that order should be. This act, in part, provides some support for a battered woman’s struggle to free herself from her violent spouse.

Domestic violence is only one of the issues the Act addresses. It also deals with the problems of rape and sexual assault. The Act provides funding for victim assistance programs like rape crisis centers and hotlines. It also provides legal assistance for victims of violence and provides funding for community violence protection programs.

The Republicans seem to be concerned because the Act extends its protection to gays and lesbians. These people make up 10% of our population and they also deserve protection from violence.

It also grants immunity from deportation to illegal immigrants who report domestic violence. They will not complain if it means that they will be deported.  Do the Republicans believe that these women don’t need and deserve protection?

What has happened to our society? Women in any culture are particularly vulnerable to violence. At one time all men and women recognized the need to protect them.

What has happened to the Republicans?

To Encourage Civil Discourse

Recently Rush Limbaugh launched a blistering attack on a third year law school student who had dared to defend the Administration’s regulation requiring health insurance policies to include contraception for women. On the first day of his attack Limbaugh called Ms. Fluke a whore and a prostitute. The next day he suggested that she should videotape her sexual encounters so he could watch them and on the third day continued his ugly attack.

Michelle Malkin in her latest editorial defends Mr. Limbaugh. She lists a number of similar attacks by liberal TV and radio commentators on conservatives, including herself. She then concludes that since liberals make such horrible nasty statements about conservatives, Limbaugh should be permitted to use similar language to attack Ms. Fluke.

Fortunately commentators and editorial writers on both the right and the left disagree. They have condemned this attack on this woman. I believe the vast majority find these vile, hateful rants whether by the right or the left, unacceptable.   

On the other hand there are a lot of people who do find this language acceptable.  Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich gave weak responses when asked to comment on Limbaugh’s tirade?  Santorum said that Limbaugh was “an entertainer.” which I guess allows him to viciously attack young women. Santorum is often on stage surrounded by his wife and daughters. I can’t help wondering how entertained he would be if Limbaugh had called any of them sluts and prostitutes for defending their beliefs as Americans.

Cal Thomas (a conservative writer) at a meeting of CPAC, in a feeble attempt at humor, suggested that if Ms. Maddow’s (a liberal talk show host) mother had used birth control the world would be better off. He realized then that a gentleman should never wish someone to be dead or to never have been born. So he called Ms. Maddow, apologized, and offered to take her to lunch. She accepted and later he devoted a column to it and she told the story on her program showing a picture of them together.  She reported that he was an intelligent, interesting man with a great sense of humor and that they had enjoyed their time together. Together they set an example for civil discourse which I hope others will follow.

I am not suggesting that a sincere  apology by Rush to Ms. Fluke would do any good and I am sure lunch wouldn’t be a good idea either. Limbaugh (and he has company on the right and left) is a mean nasty man who has capitalized on his ability to attack those who can’t fight back. Fortunately there are not a lot of Limbaughs in the world.

It would, however, be a breath of fresh air for people like Cal Thomas who, for whatever reason, belittles or attacks someone, to apologize to that person, and for the person attacked to graciously accept that apology.

Ms. Malkin in her column mentions an attack by Ed Schultz on Laura Ingraham. Perhaps we can draw a lesson from how that was handled. MSNBC gave Shultz a week off without pay. Schultz read a sincere apology before his next broadcast, then introduced the man who would take his place that week. I don’t think he has slipped into vile or insulting discourse since.

President of Georgetown University claimed the high ground in this controversy  Even though he disagreed with his student’s position he said “”she provided a model of civil discourse. This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as a people. One need not support her substantive position to support her right to respectful free expression”. It is a shame that the John DeGioia’s aren’t the ones with radio programs that attract millions of listeners.  

My most interesting friends are those with whom I disagree. They are the ones who challenge me to think. They are also the ones that force me to search for arguments to support my positions. Sometimes I can’t find one.  That does not make me angry. It makes me a better person.

 We all must learn to listen. I am afraid we all know to well how to talk.

Recently Rush Limbaugh launched a blistering attack on a third year law school student who had defended the Administration’s regulation requiring health insurance policies to include contraception for women. On the first day of his attack Limbaugh called Ms. Fluke a whore and a prostitute. The next day he suggested that she should videotape her sexual encounters so he could watch them and on the third day continued his ugly attack. Michelle Malkin in her latest editorial defends Mr. Limbaugh. She lists a number of similar attacks by liberal TV and radio commentators on conservatives, including herself. She then concludes that since liberals make such horrible nasty statements about conservatives, Limbaugh should be permitted to use similar language to attack Ms. Fluke. Fortunately commentators and editorial writers on both the right and the left disagree. They have condemned this attack on this woman. I believe the vast majority find these vile, hateful rants whether by the right or the left, unacceptable.    On the other hand there are a lot of people who do find this language acceptable.  Perhaps that is the reason Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich gave weak responses when asked to comment on Limbaugh’s tirade?  Santorum said that Limbaugh was “an entertainer.” which I guess allows him to viciously attack young women. Santorum is often on stage surrounded by his wife and daughters. I can’t help wondering how entertained he would be if Limbaugh had called any of them sluts and prostitutes for defending their beliefs as Americans. Cal Thomas (a conservative writer) at a meeting of CPAC, in a feeble attempt at humor, suggested that if Ms. Maddow’s (a liberal talk show host) mother had used birth control the world would be better off. He realized then that a gentleman should never wish someone to be dead or to never have been born. So he called Ms. Maddow, apologized, and offered to take her to lunch. She accepted and later he devoted a column to it and she told the story on her program showing a picture of them together.  She reported that he was an intelligent, interesting man with a great sense of humor and that while they still didn't agree they had enjoyed their time together. They set an example for civil discourse which I hope others will follow. I am not suggesting that a sincere  apology by Rush to Ms. Fluke would do any good and I am sure lunch wouldn’t be a good idea either. Limbaugh (and he has company on the right and left) is a mean nasty man who has capitalized on his ability to attack those who can’t fight back. Fortunately there are more Cal Thomas's than  Limbaughs in the world. It would, however, be a breath of fresh air for people like Cal Thomas who, for whatever reason, belittles or attacks someone, to apologize to that person, and for the person attacked to graciously accept that apology. They could then agree to rationally discuss their differences. Ms. Malkin in her column mentions an attack by Ed Schultz on Laura Ingraham. Perhaps we can draw a lesson from how that was handled. MSNBC gave Shultz a week off without pay. Schultz read a sincere apology before his next broadcast, then introduced the man who would take his place that week. I don’t think he has slipped into vile or insulting discourse since. The president of Georgetown University claimed the high ground in this controversy  Even though he disagreed with his student’s position he said “”she provided a model of civil discourse. This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as a people. One need not support her substantive position to support her right to respectful free expression”. It is a shame that the John DeGioia’s aren’t the ones with radio programs that attract millions of listeners.   My most interesting friends are those with whom I disagree. They are the ones who challenge me to think. They are also the ones that force me to search for arguments to support my positions. Sometimes I can’t find one. That does not make me angry. It makes me a better person. We all must learn how to listen. I am afraid we all know too well how to talk.		Show details

just received an e-mail from a friend which starts by asking if I recognize the date: January 3, 2007?  I do of course. It was the date on which the people woke up, recognized what a disaster the previous six years had been, and elected a Democratic Congress for the first time in almost 20 years.

It was too late to prevent the worst economic collapse since the depression. It was however in time to prevent that collapse from destroying ours and the worlds economy.

The person who wrote the e-mail then claims that the recession was the fault of the democrats in Congress.. He doesn’t need to read history to know that this isn’t true. I am sure he, like most of us, lived through it.

I would ask him if he remembers January, 2000? That is the date when the Republicans took control of both house of Congress and the White House. In that year and for even a few years before the seeds of economic disaster were being sown.

Not many people recognized this, although many economist and investors began to warn of our impending peril.  Federal Reserve chairman Allan Greenspan did not recognize the danger. He did testify that there were a lot of little bubbles. In 2007 he finally recognized that the bubble reached its breaking point in 2005.

Real estate prices rose at different rates in different parts of the country and some parts saw no or little increase. For example while the rate of appreciation in Los Angeles began in the late 1990’s the bubble did not begin in Las Vegas until 2003. Housing prices rose steeply beginning in 1996 and peaking in 2005.

In mid 2005 Greenspan testified that “it is hard not to see that there are a lot of local bubbles”. Even President Bush noted in early 2006 that “if houses get too expensive people will stop buying them.

In May 2006 (only four months after the Democrats got control of Congress) Forbes Magazine wrote that “the great housing bubble has started to deflate”. 2006 market data shows that lower sales, rising inventories, falling median prices, and increased foreclosure rates show that the correction in the US housing market began in late 2005 and continued through 2006 resulting in the recession that all economist agree began in Dec 2007 and ended in June 2009.

The causes of the real-estate bubble (with the benefit of hindsight) were the low interest rates fixed by the fed, the easy credit, the increased  number of sub prime and no doc loans and the increased number of adjustable rate mortgages.

The tremendous increase in home prices from 1997 to 2005 had other effects on the economy. In 2005 1,283,000 new homes were built compared to 600,000 in the early 90’s. Mortgage equity withdrawals grew considerably. In 2005 homeowners extracted 750 billion dollars of equity from their homes up from 106 billion in 1995.

The United States housing market correction

* Comparison of the percentage change in the Case-Shiller Home Price Index for the housing corrections in the periods beginning in 2005 (red) and the 1980s–1990s (blue), comparing monthly CSI values with the peak values immediately prior to the first month of decline all the way through the downturn and the full recovery of home prices.

NAR chief economist David Lereah's explanation, "What Happened", from the 2006 NAR Leadership Conference[78] Boom ended in August 2005 Mortgage rates rose almost one point Affordability conditions deteriorated Speculative investors pulled out Homebuyer confidence plunged Resort buyers went to sidelines Trade-up buyers went to sidelines First-time buyers priced out of market

All of the economic problems that led to the recession were in place by 2005, before the democrats gained control of Congress. Fortunately they were there ready to work with President Bush when he finally began dealing with the problem in 2007. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (TARP) was enacted with 172 Democrats and 91 Republicans voting yes. 108 Republicans voted against their President and his Secretary of the Treasury. Does any one remember Hank Paulson on his knees begging the Congress to pass this bill?

It is fortunate that the Democrats didn’t stonewall President Bush the way the Republicans are now stonewalling President Obama. If this act had not passed every major US bank would have had to dissolve,  the FDIC would have been wiped out and ours and the worlds economy would have been destroyed.

I don’t think the recession can be blamed on Democrats or Republicans. Very few people in either party, and very few in the country, saw what was about to happen. The major banks, the investment houses, Fanny Mae and Freddy  Mac, the mortgage originators, AIG, Moody’s, Standard and Poor and the people taking out mortgages they could not repay, all contributed.

Perhaps better government regulation and the Federal Reserve might have been able to prevent it. It is always easier to see things in hindsight.

Pledges the Republican Way

I was thinking about all the pledges that Republican candidates have signed or are about to sign.

First up: Grover Norquist’s Tax payer Protection Pledge. It says: “I will never raise taxes on anyone ever even under threat of torture”. Even if the democrats put me to the rack I will shout: “no increase in taxes!”

Then we have the Marriage Vow Pledge. It says:  “I will oppose same sex marriage, reject Sharia law and remain faithful to my spouse”. While signed by Santorum and Bachman, I am pretty sure Newt Gingrich won’t sign this one.

Next is: Jim DeMint’s Cut Cap and Balance Pledge. This requires support of the balanced budget amendment and a super majority to raise taxes. The voters in California have hamstrung their government the same way through the adoption of referendums.  Look how well this has worked out for them! A government permanently in gridlock. Cut, Cap, and Balance has been signed by Romney, Gingrich, Bachmann, Paul and Santorum.

The Taxpayer Protection pledge was signed by every candidate who sought the Republican nomination except Jon Huntsman. 279 members of the House and Senate, including Jon Boehner and Mitch McConnell, signed it. Was the president really surprised when Boehner walked away from negotiations over reducing the debt or why the super committee couldn’t agree on 1.2 billion of reductions in the debt? They can’t discuss balancing the budget because one side has signed away there ability to negotiate.

The only Republican candidate who refused to sign a pledge in this campaign was Jon Huntsman. When asked to explain this weird behavior he said “I don't sign pledges -- other than the Pledge of Allegiance and a pledge to my wife.”.

He says he told [South Carolina Senator] Jim DeMint “You just have to understand that's where I come down.” Of course Jon Huntsman is no longer a candidate. Maybe in four years?  

I am also calling on Democrats to sign a pledge not to waste their time talking to Republicans until the Republicans repudiate all their idiotic pledges. Why are these pledges necessary? I suppose it is because Republicans don’t trust their elected officials to keep their word.

With their history this is understandable. Reagan cut taxes, increased expenditures, and then signed off on the biggest tax increase in history.

H.W Bush gave his famous “read-my-lips” pronouncement, and then when he saw the deficit skyrocketing, agreed to a tax increase. A rare act of political courage rewarded, by his humiliating defeat by Bill Clinton,

When these people were faced with economic reality they did what was best for their country, not what Grover Norquist (by the way who is he) wanted them to do.

Recently I was asked to sign a pledge of support for Planned Parenthood. I explained that I support Panned Parenthood today, things change and I might not want to do so tomorrow.

Political leaders need to keep their options open. What is best today may not be tomorrow. A compromise may result in a broken pledge and compromises are the oil that keeps our government running.

 I am going to make a pledge. I pledge never to sign a pledge.