Chelsea Hedges Her Bets

My junior AP Government students are currently working on a paper arguing which modern Presidential scandal was the most serious and dangerous to our political institutions: Watergate, Iran-Contra, or the Clinton impeachment.

We were discussing the Clinton scandal and the topic of Chelsea Clinton came up. One of my students wondered how Bill and Hilary could be parents and run for and be President simultaneously. I speculated, "I'm not sure it is really possible." For uber-ambitious people I have to think their career comes before their kids. My students were curious whatever happened to Chelsea and I told them she became an investment banker.

My first inclination was to scoff at her career choice. It would seem as the daughter of a First Family the world would be her oyster. Investment banking seems like a pretty uninspired choice. Matthew Yglesias had some choice words for the privileged elite who chose this path in this post:

Moneyquote:

I’ll avoid trying to put a label on it, but there’s a certain kind of person who walks into a room filled with people interested in working on Wall Street and people who do work on Wall Street and says to himself (and it’s no coincidence that it’s almost always himself) “these are the kind of people I want to align myself with.

As best I can tell, which admittedly is not that well, the tendency of unpleasant people to congregate in this particular line of work is cross-cultural. By far the most annoying people I met in Germany, for example, were finance guys in Frankfurt. Compared to politicians, non-financial businessmen, random bartenders, bus drivers, etc. they were horrible. Obviously this sort of thing is relative and probably if you ask a bunch of bankers they’ll say all the worst people from college went on to become glib political journalists or to teach in inner-city schools.

But after thinking about it I will hold back a little bit on my self righteous condemnation of her chosen career. She, more than anyone, was eye witness to two people (her parents) who are supposedly completely committed to the selfless and noble calling of public service. As a result, I doubt she romanticizes those who claim to want to save the world and pursue careers to fulfill this mission. She certainly has chosen a path that makes no claims to being on the side of angels. Given what she has witnessed and endured she probably is looking out for herself and I'm not sure I can blame her.

The Pen is Mightier than the Sword (cont.)

I was heartened to read two letters to the editor which used my letter regarding Congressman Lynch's vote on health insurance reform as a jumping off point for their arguments. Unfortunately neither person agreed with my point of view but this is an incredibly important debate and I'm happy to see citizens continue to engage in a dialogue.

Here are links to the two letters. I have pasted the first letter in to this post and included a reply I just submitted to the Walpole Times.

Letter from Mr. Wayne Manson of Old Post Road (see his letter and my response below)

Letter from Mr. Mike Gilmartin of Auburn Drive

Mr. Manson's Letter:

WALPOLE —

To the editor:

Just a couple of corrections to Sean O’Reilly's letter, last week. I followed the congressional debate very closely and the way I see it, Congressman Lynch got this one right.

First, much to his credit Congressman Lynch did vote to strip away the anti-trust exemption that allows Health insurers to operate as monopolies, which is one major cause of high health care costs.

The Senate bill that is supported by Mr. O'Reilly restored the anti-trust exemption that reduces competition and increases costs.

Secondly, Lynch actually supported and voted for a basic public option in the House version of Health Care Reform bill. That limited public option would have allowed states to offer a no-frills low-cost health care plan to compete with big insurance companies thereby forcing prices down. Of course, again, the Senate bill that Mr. O'Reilly supports stripped out the public option.

And thirdly, the House bill placed the Health Care surcharge on couples making over $1,000,000 per year.

But the Senate bill supported by Mr. O'Reilly put a 40 percent tax on people with "expensive" health care plans.

On this point Mr. O’Reilly seems to miss the point. Because the Senate bill doesn't rein in costs on health care, by 2018 when the bill is phased in thousands of families will have exceeded the threshold for so-called "Cadillac" plans. In fact, that is how the expansion in coverage is paid for. As an area daily newspaper recently reported many Massachusetts city and town employee health care plans are already at or near the surcharge tax threshold. As the rate of health care costs continue to increase between now and 2018, many, many more middle income families will be hit with that tax.

Lastly, I too thought it was a good idea that we can carry our kids on our health plans (if you have one) until age 26. Then I looked into it and found out that the new law also allows insurance companies to increase your insurance premium by 20 to 30 percent to pay for that privilege. After spending $1 trillion dollars, you call this reform?

Mr. O'Reilly is partly right. We do need to send a message to the incumbents on Sept. 14. And the message to Congressman Lynch should be "job well done.”

Wayne Manson

Old Post Road

Walpole

My response:

To The Editor:

I appreciate and respect Mr. Manson’s response to my letter concerning Congressman Lynch and his vote on health insurance reform. I share his disappointment that the final bill did not include a public option and that the bill opted for the excise “Cadillac” tax as a source of revenue instead of the surcharge on families making more than 1 million dollars. However I fear that Mr. Manson is, in regard to the health insurance legislation, making the perfect the enemy of the good and giving Congressman Lynch too much credit for taking a principled stand when in reality the Congressman is engaged in the worst type of cynical politics.

Taking the second point first, Mr. Manson claims that the Congressman voted against the bill because it did not contain a public option. Mr. Manson and Rep. Lynch point to his Yes vote for the House bill, which contained the public option, as evidence that he is a supporter of this policy.

I offer an alternate rationale and evidence for the Congressman’s vote. Representative Lynch got scared after the election of Scott Brown and as a result withdrew his support for health insurance reform. The House vote took place before the Brown election. Leading up to the House vote health care activists across the 9^th Congressional District lobbied Congressman Lynch relentlessly to support the public option with no success. This is why, as politico.com reported on September 8, 2009:

A longtime advocate of labor interests, Lynch wasn’t even invited to the state’s leading labor breakfast this weekend because of his skepticism towards the proposed public option component of health insurance legislation.

Notably, Reps. Michael Capuano, Ed Markey and state Attorney General Martha Coakley all loudly expressed support for the public option at these same events. Lynch’s hesitation – combined with his past record – means that he'll face a tough challenge to win the nomination.

The activists who lobbied Mr. Lynch on the public option to no avail are absolutely flabbergasted that the Congressman is suddenly the only one of the 435 members of the House of Representatives who voted to kill the bill over the public option. I find it hard to believe that Congressman Lynch went from being one of the Massachusetts delegation’s most reluctant public option supporters to the most hardened advocate in the entire nation. A more plausible theory is that Mr. Lynch is, like so many politicians, trying to have it both ways.

I despaired along with Mr. Manson as the health care bill was ground down by the legislative process. While I watched this unfold I was reminded of two classic quotes from Otto von Bismarck: “Politics is the art of the possible” and “Laws are like sausages — it is best not to see them being made.” No bill is ever perfect and despite its flaws we must not lose site of the fact that every American will have access to decent affordable health care whether or not they lose their job. This is the most important domestic policy victory since Medicare and it almost did not happen because of Congressman Lynch.

There will be opportunities to improve this bill. In fact, legislation to remove the antitrust legislation has already been filed. It is important not to forget that Social Security initially denied access to minorities and women and Medicare did not provide prescription drug benefits.

Democrats face the probable loss of at least six Senate seats and twenty to thirty House seats in the upcoming November midterm elections. I’m unclear of when Mr. Manson believes there would have been be an opportunity to pass more progressive legislation that includes the public option and removal of the antitrust exemption. It took sixteen years after President Clinton’s failure on health insurance reform to get another opportunity to try reform again. We could not have afforded to wait sixteen more.

Mr. Manson argued that one of the bill’s most popular provisions, the ability to keep children on your plan until age 26, is a mirage because insurers can simply hike up your premiums to cover the additional costs. Recently released regulations concerning this provision by the IRS, Treasury and Health and Human Services Departments explicitly state that this practice is in violation of the new health care law:

(e) Examples. The rules of paragraph (d) of this section are illustrated by the following examples:

Example 1. (i) Facts. A group health plan offers a choice of self-only or family health coverage. Dependent coverage is provided under family health coverage for children of participants who have not attained age 26. The plan imposes an additional premium surcharge for children who are older than age 18.

(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 1, the plan violates the requirement of paragraph (d) of this section because the plan varies the terms for dependent coverage of children based on age.

This statement from the federal agencies enforcing the new health insurance law states that your insurance plan can not increase your premiums once your child turns eighteen.

It is unconscionable that at a time when so many people are worried about losing their job and the health benefits employment provides, Congressman Lynch chose to cast a vote that he believes will save his job. During this Great Recession this is the only job I believe we should actively try and take away from somebody. That is why I hope Walpole Democrats and Independents will vote in the September 14^th primary for Mac D’Alessandro over Congressman Lynch.

Sincerely,

Sean O’Reilly

Hemlock Street

Primary Colors of Idealism

After my AP US Government students take the AP exam in May I proceed to show them my favorite political movie, Primary Colors. The movie, adapted for the screen and directed by Mike Nichols and based on the book by Joe Klein, is an excellent exploration of the role of idealism in politics.

Michael Kinsley famously wrote that politicians experience a four phase path to corruption once they reach Washington:

It used to be said that the moral arc of a Washington career could be divided into four parts: idealism, pragmatism, ambition and corruption. You arrive with a passion for a cause, determined to challenge the system. Then you learn to work for your cause within the system. Then rising in the system becomes your cause. Then, finally, you exploit the system -- your connections in it, and your understanding of it -- for personal profit.

Kinsley's arc for politicians applies to their staff as well. This tension between idealism and corruption is illustrated by two characters in the movie, Henry Burton (aka. George Stephenopolous) who is the young idealist longing for a person and a campaign to believe in and Howard Ferguson (aka. Harold Ickes) the pragmatic, realist whose initial reaction to the heart attack of Governor Stanton's (aka. Bill Clinton) chief rival is to let out a spontaneous "Yes!!!"

versus

If one spends enough time in Washington one will often show off their sophistication by declaring everything both sides does as a cynical power play. Everything and everyone is morally compromised and any attempt to critique and criticize the other side as better or worse than their opponent is naive. Some bloggers (ie. Matthew Yglesias, Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Geenwald) have come to call this inclination "Broderism." So named after the "dean" of the Washington Post press corps, David Broder of the Washington Post, someone who embodies the tired, seen it all before attitude that can't be bothered to assess whether one party or the other is more to blame for the failures of our political institutions.

The Urban Dictionary defines Broderism as:

The worship of bipartisanship for its own sake, combined with a fake "pox on both their houses" attitude. The main goal is the establishment of a permanent ruling class of Washington insiders, our betters who know better. It is their rough agenda which is sold as "centrism" even when it has no actual relationship with the political center in a meaningful way. The establishment of an aristocratic class in America.

The belief that it all sides are equal and must compromise at all times. Regardless of the final outcome or the level of understanding or intelligence presented by each side.

This DailyKos post further explores the implications of "Broderism."

Although in my younger years I was often sucked in to "Broderism" type thinking I now reject it completely. The continuous drifting of the Republican Party in to Sarah Palin territory (here is Andrew Sullivan's recap of her lies) and it's cousin the Tea Party movement (Michael Kinsley's explanation of why the Tea Partiers are NOT patriots) makes clear that there is only one political party for adults today, the Democratic Party. For all their warts (see the near collapse of health insurance reform) the Democrats are capable of creating, debating, critiquing and finally presenting solutions to America's most pressing problems. You may or may not agree with all of their proposals but they are the only one on the stage putting forward realistic solutions.

The maturity of the Democratic Party vis a vis the Republican Party is most evidenced by their ability to have open and honest debates about the central issues of the day.

Glenn Greenwald makes the case convincingly that Democrats are much more likely to criticize their own rather than go along out of tribal loyalty:

One of the linchpins of the Bush presidency, especially during the first term (and well into the second, until he became a major political liability), was the lock-step uncritical reverence – often bordering on cult-like glorification – which the “conservative” movement devoted to the "Commander-in-Chief." An entire creepy cottage industry arose – led not by fringe elements but by right-wing opinion-making leaders – with cringe-inducing products paying homage to Bush as "The First Great Leader of the 21st Century" (John Podhoretz); our "Rebel-in-Chief" (Fred Barnes); "The Right Man" (David Frum); the New Reagan (Jonah Goldberg); "a man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius" who is our "Big Brother" (John Hinderaker); and "the triumph of the seemingly average American man," the supremely "responsible" leader who, when there's a fire, will "help direct the rig to the right house and count the kids coming out and say, 'Where's Sally'?" (Peggy Noonan).

Even as Bush implemented one massive expansion of government power after the next -- the very "un-conservative" policies they long claimed to oppose -- there was nothing but (at best) the most token and muted objections from them. The handful of conservatives who did object were cast aside as traitors to the cause, and criticisms of the President became equated with an overt lack of patriotism. Uncritical support for the Leader was the overarching, defining attribute of conservatism, so much so that even Bill Kristol, in The New York Times, acknowledged: "Bush was the movement and the cause."

Whenever I would speak at events over the last couple of years and criticize the Bush administration’s expansions of government power, extreme secrecy and other forms of corruption, one of the most frequent questions I would be asked was whether "the Left" -- meaning liberals and progressives -- would continue to embrace these principles with a Democrat in the White House, or whether they would instead replicate the behavior of the Right and uncritically support whatever the Democratic President decided. Though I could only speculate, I always answered -- because I believed -- that the events of the last eight years had so powerfully demonstrated and ingrained the dangers of uncritical support for political leaders that most liberals would be critical of and oppositional to a Democratic President when that President undertook actions in tension with progressive views.

Two months into Obama’s presidency, one can clearly conclude that this is true. Even though Obama unsurprisingly and understandably remains generally popular with Democrats and liberals alike, there is ample progressive criticism of Obama in a way that is quite healthy and that reflects a meaningful difference between the “conservative movement” and many progressives.

Over the last month, the Obama administration has made numerous decisions in the civil liberties area that are replicas of some of the most controversial and radical actions taken by the Bush administration, and the most vocal critics of those decisions by far were the very same people – ostensibly on "the Left" -- who spent the last several years objecting to the same policies as part of the Bush administration’s radicalism. Identically, many of Obama's most consequential foreign policy decisions -- in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan -- have been criticized by many on the Left. Opposition to Obama’s bank bailout plan is clearly being driven by liberal economists, pundits and bloggers, and much of the criticism over the AIG debacle came from liberals as well. There was pervasive liberal criticism over some of Obama's key appointments, including Tom Daschle, John Brennan and Tim Geithner. That's more independent progressive thinking in two months than the "conservative movement" exhibited with regard to Bush in six years.

No one illustrates this point better than Glenn Greenwald himself. Here he is on ABC's "This Week" going after Democratic poohbah Greg Craig who tries to defend the nomination of Elena Kagan.

Risky Business

With economic turmoil gripping the world and terrorist attacks popping up every couple months many Americans feel under siege. The world is a risky place no doubt and having young children has brought that fact in to focus for me with alarming clarity.

But a question that I continue to wrestle with is how accurately and effectively do we assess risk and modify our behavior accordingly?

I stumbled upon an article from "Psychology Today" that confirms my suspicions, we really stink at assessing risk.

Here is an interesting little quiz from the article that illustrates the point.

Mortal Threats

How good is your grasp of risk?

1. What's more common in the United States, (a) suicide or (b) homicide?
2. What's the more frequent cause of death in the United States, (a) pool drowning or (b) falling out of bed?
3. What are the top five causes of accidental death in America, following motor-vehicle accidents, and which is the biggest one?
4. Of the top two causes of nonaccidental death in America, (a) cancer and (b) heart disease, which kills more women?
5. What are the next three causes of nonaccidental death in the United States?
6. Which has killed more Americans, bird flu or mad cow disease?
7. How many Americans die from AIDS every year, (a) 12,995, (b) 129,950, or (c) 1,299,500?
8. How many Americans die from diabetes every year? (a) 72,820, (b) 728,200, or (c) 7,282,000?
9. Which kills more Americans, (a) appendicitis or (b) salmonella?
10. Which kills more Americans, (a) pregnancy and childbirth or (b) malnutrition?

ANSWERS (all refer to number of Americans per year, on average):

1. a
2. a
3. In order: drug overdose, fire, choking, falling down stairs, bicycle accidents
4. b
5. In order: stroke, respiratory disease, diabetes
6. No American has died from either one
7. a
8. a
9. a
10. b

Sources:

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Division of Vital Statistics)
• National Transportation Safety Board

The article identifies ten key ways we inaccurately assess risk:

I. We Fear Snakes, Not Cars
Risk and emotion are inseparable.

II. We Fear Spectacular, Unlikely Events
Fear skews risk analysis in predictable ways.

III. We Fear Cancer But Not Heart Disease
We underestimate threats that creep up on us.

This sounds like a plausible reason why there is a collective yawn from many Americans when they hear about the global catastrophe that climate change might bring.

IV. No Pesticide in My Backyard—Unless I Put it There
We prefer that which (we think) we can control.

So my principled stand against using lawn fertilizers these last three years (coinciding with the birth of my first son) might be all for naught? Rather than being embarrassed by this realization of my overreaction I am somewhat relieved because boy does my lawn need some rehabilitation.

V. We Speed Up When We Put Our Seat belts On
We substitute one risk for another.

VI. Teens May Think Too Much About Risk—And Not Feel Enough
Why using your cortex isn't always smart.

VII. Why Young Men Will Never Get Good Rates on Car Insurance
The "risk thermostat" varies widely.

I've heard several people hypothesize that we wouldn't be in this horrible economic mess if more women worked on Wall Street because they are less prone to take ridiculous risks.

VIII. We Worry About Teen Marijuana Use, But Not About Teen Sports
Risk arguments cannot be divorced from values.

IX. We Love Sunlight But Fear Nuclear Power
Why "natural" risks are easier to accept.

X. We Should Fear Fear Itself
Why worrying about risk is itself risky.

This seems like a critical point as we attempt to wrestle with the problem of terrorism post 9/11.

If I had an entrepreneurial bone in my body I think I would design a computer software program that filtered out all those sensational horror stories on cnn.com and ABC News that hype up the freakish injury or death of a child. I would also modify the television rating system with those indecipherable labels like TV-MA or TV-14 with an additional one that warns when there is harm done to children: I'm looking at you CSI and Law and Order:SVU!

So having read the article and written this post both you and I should be all set to go forth and see the world as it is, right?

C'est la vie.

Nazi Tourette's

I saw this gem via Andrew Sullivan.

Having Jon Stewart and Lewis Black in the same room should be declared illegal. I laughed so hard at this I almost died.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Back in Black - Glenn Beck's Nazi Tourette's
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Letter to Walpole Times Editor

Here is the link to my letter to the Walpole Times regarding Congressman Stephen Lynch's vote against health care insurance reform.

Letter: Send a message to the incumbents on Sept. 14 - Walpole, MA - Wicked Local Walpole

Posted using ShareThis

The Best Defense is a Good Offense

One aspect of Obama's Presidency to date that is frustrating is their inability and/or unwillingness to co-opt Republican issues and turn them in to advantages for Obama and the Democrats. Both Bill Clinton and Karl Rove perfected this political strategy. Clinton took on Republicans on issues like the budget deficit and welfare. Karl Rove attacked the military credentials of both John Kerry and Max Cleland issues that were their supposed strengths.

I think these opportunities exist for Barack Obama but he has yet to press his potential advantage to date. Three examples spring to mind:



1) The Stimulus

The stimulus is viewed by many to be too aggressive and expensive. Just look at these numbers:

Despite the unpopularity of the stimulus many independent analysts believe it kept the Great Recession from being significantly worse. See the following two graphs.

GDP and unemployment numbers in the abstract probably won't gain much political traction but contrasting the loss of jobs under Bush versus Obama might bring the differences in sharper and more effective relief.

The Obama Administration's lack of aggression in promoting the success of the stimulus can be forgiven because unemployment is still poor. The people you are trying to persuade, those that are suffering, will find little solace if you try to tell them, "Hey, it could be worse, your neighbor could be out of work too." And to make matters worse the neighbor is not necessarily going to connect the stimulus to their ability to keep their job.

So the stimulus might be a tough sell no matter its merits, but an easier sell for the Obama Administration could be the issue that is synonymous with the right, taxes.

2) Taxes

How many people know that almost forty percent of the stimulus was tax cuts? Here is the breakdown of the $800 billion.

Their was a meek attempt on tax day, April 15, to bring attention to this fact. This article from The Huffington Post looks at the numbers:

After all, neutral economists insist that, under the Obama administration, the overwhelming likelihood is that your tax burden has gone down, not up. Even conservative economic analysts acknowledge that there really is no basis for middle- and working-class Americans to believe that they're suddenly paying more. "The only tax I think that has been put in place so far is an increase in the federal cigarette tax. I can't think of another Obama tax that has gone in place so far," said Chris Edwards, Director of Tax Policy Studies at the conservative Cato Institute.

3) TARP

TARP, the Temporary Asset Relief Program, might be the most unpopular policy of all the measures designed to prop up the economy. As Talking Points Memo recently reported,

As unpopular government initiatives go, the financial bailout would seem to rank somewhere up there between Prohibition and the Stamp Act.

But the $700 billion estimated price tag now seems to be a huge overestimate...

But it now seems clear that that $700 billion figure cited as the cost of the TARP alone was way too high. Pro Publica records that of $536.3 billion that the Treasury has dispersed to date on the TARP and the programs to rescue Fannie and Freddie, $216.8 billion has already been returned, either through banks paying the money back, or through dividends generated. That still leaves $319.5 billion outstanding, but most estimates are that as the health of the financial sector continues to improve, much of that figure too will return to the government's coffers. Indeed, last month, the Treasury Department offered an estimate of its own. The TARP program will end costing about $117 billion, Tim Geithner forecast. Help for Fannie and Freddie will likely add about $85 billion more. But those losses will be partially offset by expected gains of $115 billion from the Fed's programs. That comes out to a final cost to taxpayers of $87 billion.

However much it costs, the most important issue is whether or not it worked. Even skeptics are coming around:

That hasn't happened, and experts of various stripes -- even many who initially were doubtful -- credit the bailout for that. Barry Eichengreen, a professor of political science and economics at UC Berkeley, and a left-leaning foe of the big banks, wrote earlier this year that the TARP "enabled the banks to earn their way back to solvency," and "prevented the financial system from falling off a cliff." And Tyler Cowen, a professor of economics at George Mason and a libertarian, also was skeptical at first but has conceded that "yes, the bailouts were a good idea," adding that without them, "we would have had many more failed banks, very strong deflationary pressures, a stronger seize-up in credit markets than what we had, and a climate of sheer political and economic panic."

However if one lesson was learned about Obama during the drawn out primary is that he and his staff are masters at the long game. It is possible that the Administration is keeping its powder dry realizing that the power of these messages will be more effective if they are used sparingly closer to the election when people are paying attention.

A Player or Nothing...

The sequel to Oliver Stone's 1985 classic "Wall Street" is set to come out later this year. "Wall Street" is a movie I show my economics classes and I am excited that showing a 1980's movie to my students will be vindicated with the release of a sequel twenty five years later.

Vanity Fair recently published an article written by the estimable Michael Lewis which ponders how the 1985 version of the movie "Wall Street" and its characters would never pass muster with today's generation:

The character of Gordon Gekko doesn’t really even exist anymore. Or, rather, he has become so ordinary—the hedge-fund manager—that he blends in with the landscape. In 1985, cold-calling ordinary people in the phone book and trying to sell them stock—Charlie Sheen’s character’s chosen road to riches—was still a plausible thing for a truly ambitious young man to be doing with his time. In 2008, the mere fact that he deals directly with ordinary people would cause anyone who works on Wall Street to pity him.

It is unsettling to think that, Gordon Gekko,the icon of 1980's Machiavellianism is considered trite by today's ambitious youth. As a teacher, one hears a lot of griping by peers about "this generation." This article would seem to reinforce this pessimistic view of teenagers about to enter the adult world. Lewis continues:

In 1985 it was plausible that an old guy might manipulate and ultimately corrupt a young guy. In 2010, after entire Wall Street firms have been destroyed by young men running out of control, it seems far more likely that a young guy would run circles around an old guy.

Is Michael Lewis right? Are the current 20 somethings arriving on Wall Street already jaded? Is all hope lost that morality and honest values are not perceived by the young as passe, a vice of the weak and naive?

In someways I think Michael Lewis is right and in some ways wrong.

Older generations bemoaning the loss of values and respect for their elders is as old as time itself. A teacher I worked with described a lesson he had in graduate school where the professor distributed a quote that said, "The younger generation will be the end of civilization, their morals are corrupt and they have no respect for the wisdom of their elders." The class was asked to guess the decade this quote was made. Most people in the class guessed the 1960's the decade synonymous with generational conflict.

The answer?

It was a scribe to an Egyptian pharoah in 2500 B.C talking about the children he was teaching.

So it seems our foreboding that the next generation leading us into the apocalypse may be somewhat overwrought. And yet here we are still.




The title of the post comes comes from one of the famous scenes in the original movie. Gekko is attempting to seduce Bud Fox to become his accomplice in his inside trading schemes:

Wake up, will ya pal? If you're not inside, you're outside, OK? And I'm not talking a $400,000 a year working Wall Street stiff flying first class and being comfortable, I'm talking about liquid. Rich enough to have your own jet. Rich enough not to waste time. Fifty, a hundred million dollars buddy. A player, or nothing. Now you had what it took to get into my office; The real question is whether you got what it takes to stay.

Of course Bud Fox's seduction is supposed to serve as a warning to us all not to follow down that rabbit hole. Unfortunately Michael Lewis writes that people have taken away the exact opposite lesson:

As a vehicle for social change, however, the movie was a catastrophe. It did not show Wall Street in its best light, yet Wall Street was, by far, the movie’s most enthusiastic audience. It has endured not because it hit its intended target but because it missed: people who work on Wall Street still love it. And not just any Wall Street people but precisely those who might have either taken Stone’s morality tale to heart or been offended by it. To wit, not long before hedge-fund manager Seth Tobias was found dead in his Florida swimming pool, with an unlucky mixture of cocaine, Ambien, and alcohol in his bloodstream, he gave an interview for Wall Street’s DVD bonus reel, in which he said, “I remember when I saw the movie in 1987. I recall saying, That’s what I want to be. I want to start out as Bud Fox and end up as Gordon Gekko.”

Michael Douglas often expresses his astonishment at the many Wall Street males who have sought him out in public places just to say, “Man, I want to tell you, you are the single biggest reason I got into the business. I watched Wall Street, and I wanted to be Gordon Gekko.” The film’s equally perplexed screenwriter, Stanley Weiser, has made the same point, in a different way. “We wanted to capture the hyper-materialism of the culture,” he said. “That was always the intent of the movie. Not to make Gordon Gekko a hero.”

Are today's teenages similar or even more apt to look at Gekko as a hero? In someways today's generation, the "echoboomers", are a paradox. They are focused on community service, being environmentally responsible and less concerned with race, ethnicity and religion than any generation before them.

At the same time echoboomers are more obsessed with status signaling that getting in to an elite college provides. Some older generations speculate that all of the positive selfless attributes in the previous paragraph are simply tailored to secure the selfish goal of getting in to the right school.



Just possibly this next generation of "echoboomers" will not be end of civilization, nor its savior. They will be different and that is what is most unnerving to their parents and grandparents.

Adults have worried for thousands of years that the next generation will be the end of us. I believe that facing new challenges, they will find new ways to succeed, and take their place as adults and soon enough begin the process of worrying about the next generation. And hopefully this process will continue for another thousand years or more.

The Pen is Mightier than the Sword?

My Congressman, Stephen Lynch (MA-09), spoke to the Town Meeting of Walpole on Wednesday night and defended his no vote on the health care reform bill. This is a letter I submitted to my local paper, The Walpole Times, which I hope will be published next Thursday.

Congressman Stephen Lynch addressed Town Meeting on Wednesday evening and spent a considerable amount of time defending his no vote on health insurance reform. Unfortunately there was no opportunity to challenge the Congressman on many of his claims that ranged from misleading to completely false.

The Congressman based his resistance to reforming our health care system on five key points:

1) The Senate bill did not contain a public option.

This claim is completely disingenuous as Congressman Lynch is on record as opposing a public option. It is shocking to have a Congressman oppose a key provision of health care reform and then claim he opposed the bill because it did not contain the public option he previously opposed.

From politico.com September 8, 2009:

At Sunday's Boston Common rally for President Obama’s health care reform, Lynch was booed (Boston Globe, September 8, 2009) during his speech by the very same activists he’ll need to win over in the upcoming special election. A longtime advocate of labor interests, Lynch wasn’t even invited (Boston Globe, September 8, 2009) to the state’s leading labor breakfast this weekend because of his skepticism towards the proposed public option component of health insurance legislation.

Notably, Reps. Michael Capuano, Ed Markey and state Attorney General Martha Coakley all loudly expressed support for the public option at these same events. Lynch’s hesitation – combined with his past record – means that he'll face a tough challenge to win the nomination.

This type of hypocrisy by politicians continues to feed our cynicism and loss of faith in government.

2) The Senate bill raises the revenue to extend coverage to the uninsured by applying a “Cadillac” tax to current plans that most of us will pay.

Congressman Lynch implied that this “Cadillac” tax would affect all of our health care plans. This is untrue. The Cadillac tax goes in to effect in 2018 and applies to a very small percentage of health care plans in America, those plans costing over $27,500 for families. The $27,500 threshold will increase at the rate of inflation and possibly more if health care inflation is higher.

For comparative purposes, once Walpole switches over to its rate saver plans, the most expensive plan will cost $18,204 per year. This is a far cry from the $27,500 threshold at which the “Cadillac” tax will kick in. In addition, municipal health care plans, like those for employees of the town of Walpole, are some of the most generous plans in the state. For those in the private sector the average cost of a health care plan in Massachusetts is $13,788.

To imply that all of us are going to pay this tax is not only a blatant scare tactic, it is a lie.

3) Congressman Lynch represents his constituents, not the President of the United States, the Speaker of the House or anyone else.

This is true. However citizens of Massachusetts and residents of Walpole will benefit tremendously from the national health care bill. Phil Edmundson, CEO of William Gallagher Associates and John O’Brien, CEO of UMass Memorial Health Care, wrote in the Boston Globe that national health care reform will:

Make insurance for affordable for Massachusetts families and individuals

· Today, a family of four paying about $1,000 a month for health insurance, and earning up to $66,000 a year, is eligible for sliding-scale subsidies to help pay that bill, freeing up much-needed cash for rent, groceries, and heating bills. Individuals making less than $32,000 are also eligible for help with premiums. National health reform would bring sliding-scale subsidies to an additional 75,000 middle-class individuals and families around the state.

Help Massachusetts’ small businesses.

· Small businesses would also get a lot of help. Approximately 70,000 small businesses, many of which are struggling to hire the workers they need to be successful, would receive new tax credits to offset 50 percent of what it costs to offer health insurance to their workers.

Help Massachusetts’ seniors with their prescription drug costs

· Prescription drugs would become affordable for nearly 200,000 of Massachusetts’s seniors. As national health reform fixes the Medicare Part D “doughnut hole,’’ seniors could focus on being well, instead of splitting pills or skipping days between meds in an effort to make them last longer. And all seniors could get preventive care visits and enjoy wellness programs, as national reform will guarantee Medicare coverage for such benefits.

Create jobs for Massachusetts health care industry

· National health care reform would also bring significant increases in funds available for medical research, primary care, community health centers, and health quality improvements. This would allow Massachusetts’ knowledge-based economy to thrive.

4) Full implementation will not take place until 2018 and the politicians who passed the bill will not be around to take responsibility for its consequences.

Major parts of this bill take place immediately. According to the Christian Science Monitor immediate reforms include:

· Insurance companies will be prohibited from placing lifetime caps – limits on the amount of money that can eventually be paid out – on their policies. They’ll face new restrictions on setting annual caps, as well.

· Insurance companies also will be prohibited from pulling your coverage, except in case of fraud or intentional misrepresentation.

· Children won’t be excluded from coverage due to pre-existing health conditions. Plus, children will be able to stay on their parents’ policy until age 26.

· Small businesses that offer health coverage to employees will be eligible for tax credits of up to 50 percent of premium costs.

· Seniors who fall into the coverage gap, or “doughnut hole”, in the middle of the Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage plan will get $250 to help them pay their bills.

· People with pre-existing health conditions will be able to enroll in a new, but temporary, national high-risk insurance plan.

Health care is complicated and the delayed implementation of some provisions is to ensure that families, companies and the federal and state governments have the necessary time to adjust to the changes. Implying that the timeline for implementation is delayed because people are embarrassed is disingenuous at best.

The only Washington politician I know who is not hoping to be serving in 2018 is the only one who is limited to two terms by the Constitution, President Obama. So this accusation seems to be a thinly veiled and cheap criticism of the President.

5) The bill maintains the anti-trust exemption for health insurance companies.

This is true and Congressman Lynch implies that because the antitrust exemption remained in the bill it is a giveaway to insurance companies. However, it seems insurance companies didn’t get the memo. These very same companies fought the health care bill tooth and nail.

Removing the antitrust exemption is important but should not have been grounds for opposing the entire bill. No bill is ever perfect as evidenced by Social Security Act of 1935 spearheaded by FDR. When Social Security was passed it did not cover agricultural and intermittent workers. These exclusions were designed to keep most women and minorities out of the Social Security program. This was a clear injustice yet would the United States be better off today if FDR’s entire Social Security was defeated over these legitimate criticisms?

Ensuring that every one of us has health care that can’t be taken away even if we lose our job, has been the number one domestic policy priority of the Democratic Party since the 1950’s. It took sixteen years to revive health insurance reform after the defeat of President Clinton’s initiative. If Congressman Lynch had successfully helped defeat this effort it likely would have been another sixteen years or more before anyone tried again. With his no vote on health care, it is now obvious that we cannot depend on Congressman Lynch to stand up for the values many of us hold dear.

That is why I urge you, if you are a Democrat or Independent, to vote for Mac D’Alessandro in the Democratic primary on September 14th. Send a message to entrenched incumbents like Congressman Lynch that they need to represent our values not their perceived short-term political interests.

Mind the Gap

Although I've been trying to keep up with the ups and downs of today's election in Britain by far my most frequent interaction with British culture is watching the children's show "Thomas the Tank Engine" with my son.

Although in the United States there are some socioeconomic differences between Democrats and Republicans, America, relative to the rest of the industrialized world, is renowned for its lack of class consciousness. Britain, on the other hand, is infamous for the enduring, centuries old divisions within its society that are dictated by class.

I was looking online for some Thomas episodes for my son to watch and was reminded of these social and political differences. I was intrigued to learn there are some interesting differences between the U.S. and U.K. versions. Most striking is that the head of the railroad on the Island of Sodor is called Sir Topham Hatt in the U.S. version and the Fat Controller in the U.K. version.

I chuckled at the difference. It may be nothing, but "the boss" in the U.S. version seems to have a desirable and admirable name that includes the respectful "Sir" as well as an illusion to his wealth signaling top hat. Needless to say the British Boss's name could barely be more pejorative. If you really want to bring someone down a notch today go ahead and call them fat.

I have no experience working or living in the U.K. but my impressions of the role of class and hierarchy in the U.S. and U.K. was shaped by a Slate article I use with my AP Government class to initiate a discussion on political culture.

The article compares the U.K., U.S., French and German version of the show "The Office" to see how each show illuminates the differences between the four cultures. The interesting difference between the U.S. and U.K. versions revolved around the different personalities of the two bosses.

As opposed to the British boss who gets angry when his underlings focus on their work instead of his antics:

...to an American viewer, a boss who fails to project at least an outward appearance of seriousness would not be credible. And, perhaps because every American thinks he or she can be the boss one day, given the right circumstances, we tend to identify with our employers. By American subconscious logic, even a stooge must have the possibility of professional growth, because who knows—one day we may be that stooge.

These differences between the U.K. and U.S. reminded me of a cartoon I saw many years ago that presents a split screen depicting British and American chauffeurs driving their bosses around. The thought bubble above the American chauffeur's head imagines himself sitting in the back seat of the limo being driven around. In contrast the British chauffeur imagines himself keying his boss's brand new limousine while he's not looking.

Beyond the differences between the bosses the entire offices have a different feel:

But, more subtly, the base-line mood of David Brent's workplace (the U.K. version)—resignation mingled with self-loathing—is unrecognizably alien to our (well, my) sensibility. In the American office, passivity mingles with rueful hopefulness: An American always believes there's something to look forward to.

I am curious whose world view is right the dour British or the cheerful American? I think we could both learn from each other.