Obama makes nice, MSNBC makes not nice, Boehner follows suit

The President’s session with the House Republicans might have been the first step toward more civil political discourse and toward working together on the problems facing the American people. Might, but not if some have their say.

Many in the media paint all political activity as sport, with winners and losers. For example, Friday night MSNBC’s brain trust—Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow—rushed to crown Obama the winner, the Republicans (of course) the losers. And—just to rub it in—pointed out that the Republicans had been outsmarted into letting America see the President’s triumph.

Then on Saturday, after generally constructive comments by Republicans who attended, the office of House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) put out a release headed,  "Rhetoric versus reality: President Obama repeats discredited talking points during dialogue with House GOP."

Once again, people on both sides of the political divide rush to keep anyone from bridging the divide for the benefit of the American people. Shame on MSNBC, and shame on John Boehner.

Unethics in California

Today’s LA Times headline screamed: UC ready to raise student fees by 32%. UC—the University of California—is a great university. It’s the flagship of the huge system of higher education that is widely credited with making California the envy of the world, the pace setter in agriculture, entertainment, aerospace, and information technology. It’s very low in-state tuition has opened the door to advancement to generations of Californians, rich and poor alike, but especially to those who couldn’t otherwise even dream of a quality university education.

Student fees will be over $10,000, tripling in ten years. With other costs a student will have to pay $26,000 to attend for a year. This is the result of gridlock in California politics caused by solid Republican opposition to raising any taxes to pay the costs of running a modern state.

Many, if not most, of these Republican legislators themselves attended UC when it was far cheaper than it is now. Having reaped the benefit they are selfishly denying it to today’s young Californians. By whatever measure you want to use-- refusing to “give back,” refusing to leave things as good as they found them, or refusing to give a hand up to people who need it-- this is profoundly unethical behavior.

The Ethics Challenge of Health Care

The ethics challenge: daring Democrats and Republicans to find a balanced solution to health care reform

• The need for reform
• The kind of reform we need
• The process of reform

The need for reform of one-sixth of our economy

• What kind of people are we? Most of us are doing fine, for now, but
• --40 million of our neighbors have no health insurance
• --millions more fear losing their jobs and therefore their insurance
• Health care will break the federal budget within a decade or so, or—more likely—will lead to severe cutbacks in care and big increases in cost
• Are we satisfied with a system that takes care of us while leaving our neighbor to suffer?

What kind of reform do we need?

An ethical reform means—

• Giving everyone the chance for affordable coverage
• Paying for benefits as we use them; not passing down the bills to our children and grandchildren.

What process do we use to get there?

Start with some truth-telling—

• There are no death panels, Senator Grassley, your grandma is safe.
• There will be rationing, President Obama. It’s true that there already is rationing—just ask anyone whose treatment has been denied by their insurance company—but there will be more, as forty million people are added to a system while costs are being cut from Medicare.
• The insurance companies are already telling the truth about costs going through the roof without a powerful mandate requiring healthy people to buy insurance. (Absent such a mandate young healthy people will stay out of the system until they’re sick and need coverage—which all the reform bills prohibit the insurance companies from denying.)

There are good ideas on both sides of the aisle

• Not matched by much good will on either side of the debate.
• Too many lines drawn—
• --no public option (nearly all Republicans)
• --no bill without a public option (Speaker Pelosi and many Democrats).
• Members of Congress are choosing up sides rather than working together to meet the ethics challenge. Both sides see danger where there is only difference. Neither seems willing to solve the problems without casting blame.

How to get the nation to real reform?

• Televise sessions on C-Span, like the President promised during the campaign
• Democrats commit to an inclusive process that listens to the concerns of the Republicans and the insurance industry
• Republicans commit to participate in good-faith negotiations
• Both sides leave ideology behind
• e.g., the private sector is greedy, immoral, and irresponsible
• e.g., the government can’t run a two-car funeral

The nation needs the best of both parties.

Where are the Ethical Republicans? Here's One.

Joe Scarborough (former Republican Congressman, sidekick to Newt Gingrich), on Meet the Press today: "Leaders in both parties have an affirmative responsibility to step forward and speak out against this hate speech and speak out against people carrying guns to rallies. As a guy with a 100 percent lifetime rating with the NRA, I can tell you that it not only hurts those of us who believe in Second Amendment rights, it makes the job of the Secret Service and of our law enforcement personnel so much harder. We've got to tone this debate down."