Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
Before I begin with the serious stuff, I'd like to indulge in a little gratuitous media-bashing first. If that sort of thing isn't your cup of tea, just skip to the next section now. You have been warned.
But is their idea viable? Or would the unintended consequences be worse that what already exists, especially at the small, short-term-loan end of the scale? These are questions that bear some examination.
In a few hours from now, President Barack Obama will give a live press conference to the nation. This is part of a new and concerted media effort by the White House to make Obama much more visible in the debate on healthcare reform. But being visible is one thing, and showing leadership is another. Because President Obama has so far been unwilling to tackle the tough decisions on healthcare reform, at least not in public. And, as Obama is accusing his detractors of doing, this is nothing more than playing politics with the issue by avoiding personal political risk to himself. Disturbingly, Obama hasn't even been very good at this political cheerleading, although he has gotten better in the past few days.
Conservatives and corporate-owned Democrats are in a tizzy. The House is moving its version of healthcare reform forward, and it (gasp!) raises money by (double-gasp!) taxing rich folks. Not by very much, as these things go -- but you certainly wouldn't know that from hearing Republican politicians and their enablers in the news media. As far as they're concerned, Democrats are going to raise everyone's tax rates (yes, even YOURS!) until they rival Denmark's (complete with Fox News graphics, in case you missed the point). While the tactic is new, the strategy is an old one, and can be summed up as: "Who will stand up for the poor, poor millionaires and billionaires?"
The only real question in the hearings is how large a foot Republicans were going to insert into their collective mouth. The answer: medium-sized. Republicans on the Senate committee had a tightrope to walk this week, and the only drama was whether they would fall into the net of public yawns, or plummet to being the "Permanent Minority Party -- And Definitely Not THAT Kind Of Minority, Thank You Very Much." Republicans, you see, live in a world called "the 1950s." They must have all brightened up considerably when Sotomayor herself brought up Perry Mason (which caused the historic First Official Senatorial Joke to be uttered by Al Franken, it should be noted for posterity's sake). The geezers must have thought, "Perry Mason! Finally.... finally... a cultural reference I understand!!"
OK, this column is rapidly getting out of my control, so I have to move on to the more important things before it totally loses all touch with sanity. In other words, we hereby return you to our cradle-to-grave Michael Jackson coverage, now entering its 294th hour...
This Saturday is, of course, Independence Day. It was also scheduled to be "Round Two" of the tea bag protests. But their planned protest seems to be fizzling like a wet firecracker. At least in the media's view, so far. Perhaps scheduling protests on one of the worst news days in the year is responsible for this inattention?
Dan Froomkin's "White House Watch" column today will be the last one that appears on WashingtonPost.com. Froomkin has expressed interest in possibly moving the column elsewhere and continuing it, and I consider this a test of whether newspapers are (a.) smart enough to realize this is the way to modernize and move into the future of journalism, or (b.) dumb as a bag of hammers. WashingtonPost.com has obviously chosen the (b.) route. Because Froomkin's column is a shining example of how newspapers could migrate from their print business model to the more interactive web-based model they need to be in to survive.
Every so often I get a wild-and-crazy idea on a subject I know little about. These usually are later proven to be unworkable or unwise (by people who do know what they're talking about), but this low level of success shall not deter me. Because right now, in the midst of two roaring debates ("how to pay for healthcare reform" and "how to wean ourselves off foreign oil"), there seems to be a partial answer to both that nobody has hit upon yet. Instead of paying for healthcare by taxing soda, sugar, fast food, tobacco, or liquor (all of which have been proposed so far, as well as other less-direct taxes like tinkering with the income tax system), why not tax plastic?
So there are going to be some ground rules that are going to apply to all insurance companies, because I think the American people understand that, too often, insurance companies have been spending more time thinking about how to take premiums and then avoid providing people coverage than they have been thinking about how can we make sure that insurance is there, health care is there when families need it.