The recent turmoil surrounding the re-election of President Karzai underscores that the government of Afghanistan has not attained the transparency and stability to win the basic fight against corruption, let alone drug trafficking and other threats to the peace, without help. The U.S. administration has been supporting and encouraging Afghan efforts to implement various UN Conventions and achieve a measure of control of “cross border” issues, but the substantive problems that tainted the recent election mean that there is neither a viable Afghan mandate for internal governance nor a sustainable security for the population – how can officials who lack the confidence of the citizenry possibly deal with the problems on the Pakistani border?
Perhaps part of the problem with getting past the necessary short-term goal — stabilizing the country enough to work toward a resolution to their governance issues and establish a durable peace — would be more easily accomplished if the U.S. manages to return to a position of world authority by the simple, tried-and-true expedient of leading by example – a strategy which fell by the wayside in our angry, fervent rush to react to those who planned and perpetrated the September 2001 attacks.
In a perfect world each U.S. President would start with a clean slate, the time to more than just sketch out their own vision, and the direct power to accomplish the goals and priorities they articulated during their campaign. In the real world, Barack Obama had two short months to assemble his initial team following the election and assimilate the domestic and international situation from a new perspective prior to exerting the gentle powers of persuasion and diplomacy which are the principal tools granted the President under the U.S. Constitution.
Obama needs to lead the Congress to a mutually acceptable definition of sustainable security in our ever more dangerous world – this will be the true test of his tenure in the Oval Office. Inspiring an impressive electoral majority is not, and will not be, in and of itself enough to overcome the entrenched, self-interested powers that are every bit as present in Washington D.C. as they are throughout Afghanistan.
The President has made impressive strides on the platform he laid down as he accepted his party’s nomination in August of 2008. Yet until a substantial majority in Congress can get beyond the habit of partisan posturing to work, instead, on integrating the sundry foreign and domestic initiatives before them into a unified vision of what national security means in the 21st century, until those elected to Congress accept their charter to work for the common good of the people, the whole of their labor will remain scandalously less than the sum of the parts.
Our hasty, arguably under-planned expedition into Afghanistan, in the minds o
f many became an under-resourced “economy of force” operation — a forgotten, undermanned front as we changed our focus from catching bin Laden to invading Iraq. Now as the military experts seek an increase in force, it’s increasingly clear that the resolution of the problems facing Afghans and their neighbors are dependent on more than supporting the country’s fledgling democracy until they develop a capable, trust-worthy government.
As with the United States, the long-term success of Afghanistan depends on those in positions of power and leadership acting in concert to define and attain sustainable security that allows the citizenry to focus on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Reuters article cites changes in health care reform bills as evidence activists are prevailing despite insurance industry lobbyists
For-profit insurance is unique to the U.S. health care system. No other developed country has a profit motive warping the payment of health care, driving up costs. That’s arguably the key reason Americans spend a much higher share of personal income on health care, and why small business owners shoulder a greater share of the cost than mega-corporations with greater bargaining leverage — and surely, too, a factor in why so many Americans are uninsured.
But the steep premium hikes announced lately may well backfire, as congressional reps increasingly see value in distancing themselves from insurance industry profiteers. The public-option activists are making steady headway in the U.S. as people realize it’s not health care that costs too much, it’s the overhead associated with the payment systems. Imagine if processing payments for health care was as efficient as, say, processing checks.
Shining the light on those who game the system and talk out of both sides of their mouth has given some in Congress fits. D.C. has never liked public attention to focus on influence peddling: the facts about campaign contributions, or how congressional spouses (such as Mrs. Joe Lieberman) earn money from sitting on boards of directors, or working for lobbying firms, etc., never sit well with constituents. But in times of economic crisis the appearance of financial improprieties becomes even more politically dangerous.
In a year when “lobbyist” may replace “liberal” as the dreaded L-word, the wise politician draws no attention to any connections with the corporate shills who infest Congress like a biblical plague. Any elected official whose spouse is paid to represent or advise an unpopular special interest should observe that simple caution even more carefully. Naive voters may not understand that this is simply how business is done in their corrupt capital these days — so it is best to say nothing and hope that nobody asks too many questions.
As noted many places, but particularly at “new media” sites that don’t derive income from particular advertisers that might tend to bend their reporting angles, Senator Lieberman has accepted more than $1 million in campaign contributions from the insurance industry and more than $600,000 from pharmaceuticals and related healthcare-products companies. Is it any wonder his constituents are questioning his impartiality?
It’s certainly no wonder voters wanted changes in Washington when they went to the polls in 2008. Activists almost certainly won’t get everything they’re advocating, but they’ve had more influence on the negotiations than the special influence folks can believe. The bills making their way through the Congress are starting to approach what then-Senator Obama articulated during his successful campaign for the Presidency. They may even reach the point where a public option creates bargaining leverage approaching what the largest corporations have enjoyed, and more middle- and working-class Americans can afford to participate.
Proving that even the most eloquent, inspirational leader in Washington still has to deal with business as usual in the Congress, Senator Reid has announced that a bill approaching what President Obama has been articulating since he was just a candidate for the office is poised to make it to the Senate floor – over 9 months after he was sworn into office; just shy of a full year after he won the election.
Rachel Maddow explains the theme, and the potential variations on a “public option,” then interviews Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon.
One way the bill (as it currently stands) arguably fails the test is the provision allowing states to opt out, thereby reducing access to a federal program and, accordingly, the size of the risk pool (which is thought to be one of the keys to controlling the cost of prescription drugs.)
Further, to produce true leverage and force insurance providers to rein in costs and premiums it would obviously be preferable to allow anybody to sign up for this plan at any time. Instead the bill only makes a public option available to those who are, in fact, uninsured. Changing will still not be seamless, or trivially easy, and the convoluted form of the bill, the “asterisks” as Maddow describes it, show just how much influence the legion of lobbyists can exert on behalf of special interests – in this case, the big insurance companies who stand to lose their exorbitant compensation packages.
RSS - Posts