Obvious and Less Obvious Remedies

Well, Dan Coats, former Senator, Republican establishment pick, won the Indiana Republican primary for Bayh's former seat. No surprise there, with four more conservative opponents in the race splitting the vote, three of them relatively fresh faces.

Coats won by slightly more than the combined vote totals of the two last-place finishers. In hindsight, it appears that the only way any of the challengers could have won was for all of them to get together and decide who should continue. I can see why neither Hostettler nor Stutzman wanted to make that move, but for weeks now, Behning and Bates must have known they had no chance whatsoever -- zero, nada, zilch -- of getting the nomination. Why didn't either of them withdraw and throw support to one of the stronger candidates? They couldn't know that would be insufficient -- and who knows, such a move by both of them might have changed the dynamics of the race enough that it would have sufficed.

Meanwhile, there's a relatively simple solution to this perennial problem. In multi-candidate races, the way to avoid splitting of the vote is a voting system that allows voters to choose more than one candidate. By far the simplest such system to understand and to implement is approval voting. In approval voting, each voter votes for as many candidates as s/he finds acceptable, and the one with the highest vote total wins. Voters who wanted a candidate with no Congressional experience could have voted for Bates, Behning and Stutzman; voters who wanted a strong candidate with small-government credibility could have voted for Stutzman and Hostettler. In two other Indiana races, State House District 60 and U.S. Congressional District 9, better-known politicos lost to relative newcomers (although in the latter, another split-vote situation almost gave former Congressman Mike Sodrel the victory). With approval voting, Coats might have gone down as well.

Sorta Like a Published Author

Well, one of my picture book manuscripts made the first cut at smories.com, a site that has children reading picture book MSS aloud. Follow this link to hear it:

http://www.smories.com/watch/where_do_fireflies_sleep/

Still learning after 20 years

My husband and I have been married for over 20 years. For all that time, we’ve shared a king-sized bed.

I’m someone who typically gets up at least during the aptly-named wee hours of the night. Frequently, when I climb back into bed, I encounter a knee, elbow and/or shoulder. My husband has, in that brief interval, shifted over toward my side of the bed.

For over 20 years, I have grumbled (mildly) about this apparent bed-hogging behavior. It’s a king-sized bed! Why does he need to take over even more space?

A few weeks ago, as a result of a conversation I don’t remember in detail, it dawned on me: that wasn’t what was happening.

When I get out of bed, and he half-rouses from sleep, he senses something missing. He’s been checking to see if I’m still there.

For over 20 years, he’s been reaching out for me.

I’ve stopped grumbling.

One more on health care

Well, it appears we aren't done with Obamacare, so here's one more letter I sent (to the allegedly-Blue-Dog Democrats):

-------

Please vote Nay on, and actively oppose, the Senate-passed version of Obamacare and any procedural vote related to Obamacare.

Both the House and Senate bills would greatly expand government involvement in health care and impose an unconstitutional mandate on individuals to buy government-defined health insurance packages, while (if honestly examined) greatly expanding future federal deficits. Both are full of little-known booby traps, such as a marriage penalty for many low and middle income couples. The Senate bill, however, adds some particularly loathsome touches -- blatant vote-buying provisions including the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback. It would also saddle the states with massive new unfunded mandates.

There is every reason to expect that if the House passes the Senate bill, the President will sign it. There is no reason to assume that the reconciliation process will be used, or lawfully can be used, to correct any significant portion of what is wrong with this bill.

Public opposition to this approach to health care reform is unyielding and increasing. It is outpaced only by public revulsion for the strong-arm tactics that have been used, and even more for those being contemplated. Any Democrat whose legislative agenda does not begin and end with Obamacare must realize that if this bill is passed, the Republicans are likely to take the House, and to greatly reduce (at least) the Democratic majority in the Senate. Is it worth it? Is it worth the likelihood of losing your own Congressional seat? Are you a Congressional Representative or a lemming?

Please bring this sorry episode to an end, and facilitate a new and better-considered approach to health care reform.

Sincerely,

Karen A. Wyle

Let's have a party, we'll all dance the hora

I should have done it long ago. I am a neglectful Jewish parent. But finally, yesterday, I taught my younger daughter to dance the hora.

Turned out my older daughter didn't know it either. We demonstrated it. More formal instruction will follow.

Curt Schilling's defamation action

Well, the inimitable gaffe-mistress Martha Coakley has done it again. After ridiculing her opponent, Scott Brown, for "standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?", she has now called famed Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling a Yankee fan.

Schilling may have a cause of action here. It is slander per se (no need to prove damages) to make false allegations injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession. Schilling has retired, but if he makes money from speaking tours, promotional items, etc., that income would surely suffer if people believed he was a secret Yankees fan. The only question is whether anyone (besides Martha Coakley) would be foolish enough to believe it.

No F-ing Way

Oh, come on, now.

In addition to double searches of carry-on luggage and other random searches, we hear that for the last hour of a flight, passengers will be forbidden to hold anything in their laps -- blankets, books, notepads, and of course, laptops -- or to leave their seats. Let's examine this bright idea.

How many businesspeople will decide that a day at the office plus a video conference is more productive than spending maybe three or four hours in security, and then sitting on a plane unable to work? (Gee, didn't the airlines just spend money on making wireless Internet available on planes? Too bad.) How many trips to see family or go on vacation will be switched to cars, trains and buses? (I'm due to go to Chicago in January, and if this policy is in place, you can bet I won't fly there.) But that isn't the best part.

Picture a plane with 15 or 20 young children on board. For the last hour of the flight, none of those children may play with toy cars or Barbies or handheld games; hold their blankets, lambies or teddy bears; look at a picture book; color with crayons; curl up with a pillow; or go to the bathroom.

How long will it take until a flight attendant commits seppuku? or assaults a TSA official?

Senator Bayh and the Washington Post

The Washington Post opines that Senator Evan Bayh's recent record of "crossing the aisle" and breaking away from the Democratic lockstep "virtually ensures he will not be a serious candidate for national office." I'm not so sure. Yes, many Democratic primary voters will want someone with a purer devotion, but others will be worried enough at the party's sinking popularity that they'll hold their noses and vote for a centrist.

Here's the message I sent Sen. Bayh earlier today:

--------

Dear Senator Bayh:

A Washington Post article today suggested that your relative "conservatism" and tendency to "cross the aisle" must mean that you were abandoning any Presidential aspirations. Well, that's the Washington Post for you.... I am quite skeptical about the notion that political moderation, and refusal to go along with ill-conceived and damaging legislation like "cap and trade", would disqualify a senator from nationwide recognition and support.

Whatever your plans for the future, here's one Hoosier and American applauding the independence you have sometimes shown, and urging you to go further in the same direction. Please assess, soberly and apart from partisan considerations, whether the current health care bill is well-conceived, thoroughly thought out, inclusive of all sensible reforms, and devoid of serious unintended consequences. If you cannot answer a decisive "Yes!" to all these questions, please stand up and vote against ending debate on the health care bill. If you do, I for one will hope to see you prove the Washington Post wrong.

Sincerely,
Karen A. Wyle

still trying on health care

Well, here's the latest missive into the whirling void:

Dear Senator Bayh:

Some of the latest tidbits from the healthcare debate should give any moderate senator or voter pause about the current enterprise. The proposed legislation would make disproportionate cuts in Medicare's home care coverage. This could be in a Proverb Dictionary under "penny-wise, pound-foolish". To somehow compensate, an amendment is passed to say that no "guaranteed" home care benefits will be cut -- a word with no reliable content. A new program, the "Class Act", is set up, with premiums due for years before benefits, but with expected payouts far exceeding benefits. So those who are losing home health care from the Medicare cuts can now pay out premiums for years before receiving anything, under a program that will founder in a few years from inadequate funding.
This muddled and destructive approach to one aspect of healthcare cannot reasonably be expected to be the exception to the bill's overall quality and impact. How can you support this ill-conceived political behemoth?
Do you really have more to fear politically from the Democratic leadership than from Hoosier voters, if this bill or anything like it becomes law? As a member of what is supposed to be the more sober and deliberative legislative body, don't you owe it to your consituents and the country to call, "Whoa!" and give a more considered, less politicized process a chance?
Please!

Not just a pig

From my latest message to my Congressman, Baron Hill:

"The House’s health care bill: 1,990 pages, much of it in impenetrable legislative jargon. This isn’t just a pig in a poke – it’s a manure lagoon."

In other news, making Biden look good

Whodathunkit: in the context of the ineptness of the Obama administration -- junking the planned Eastern European missile installations, without prior notice to Poland, on the anniversary of the Soviet's invasion of that country -- Vice President Biden looks like a skilled statesman.

Still trying on health care "reform"

Since Senator Evan Bayh is one of my senators, I keep sending him messages about Obamacare and its siblings. I dunno how often is too often -- I hope my emails aren't being automatically roundfiled. Anyhow, here's the latest. The subject line was "impact of medical device tax -- another unintended consequence".

----

One of Bloomington, IN’s premier companies, Cook Medical, would take a serious financial hit from the proposed health care “reform” legislation. The 4% tax on medical devices would threaten a company that provides your constituents not only with thousands of good jobs, but with the pride of hosting a company whose products improve medical care worldwide. Other medical device companies face similar damage. There’s an irony – health care “reform” that undermines health-enhancing technology. This is just one of the unintended consequences that would flow from ill-considered, patched-together, politically driven legislation.

You are in a position to hit the brakes. Please do so, for the good of your constituents and your country. Give us a chance to accomplish real health care reform with the appropriate care, thoroughness, and bipartisan creativity.

A Pig in a Poke -- free meme....

Well, I just made my first Facebook Flair, and there it is. I'm going to do my feeble best to get this meme out there in the blogosphere....

If I can get my talented artist daughter to do a cartoon, I'll focus in particular on what a Conference Committee would turn out.

Although "Frankenstein" would be as good a label as "pig in a poke" for what would probably result....

Meanwhile, at the UN - a Contrast in Leadership

I do NOT wish I lived in Israel, but boy howdy, I'm up for a leadership exchange program.

Israel's Netanyahu gives a speech worthy of Churchill. It starts out focusing on Iranian Holocaust denial, and gets broader in scope as it goes along. It's an exhilarating defense of science and innovation, of freedom, of human potential.

Meanwhile, our very own President seasons his generality soup with a sprinkle of self-importance and a soupcon of stale apologies. Not to mention that he's all excited about closing Pandora's box -- whoops, I meant eliminating all nuclear weapons from the planet (I guess everyone will forget how to make them). Oh, and to prevent bad guys from getting hold of fissile material, he wants to have an "internationally supervised" nuclear fuel bank. Which would hold low-enriched nuclear fuel, which is easy to process into weapons-grade material. Russia and Kazakhstan have offered to host it. What could possibly go wrong?

OY VEY.

Constituents of Gang of 6 -- Beware the Conference Committee

The constituents of the Senate Finance Committee's "Gang of 6" may be our only hope for stopping Obamacare. Whatever careful compromise the 6 think they've worked out, they will have no control over the last-minute deals made in the Conference Committee, and there will be enormous pressure on both houses to pass whatever Frankenstein that committee patches together and lets loose. The Gang's constituents need to bombard them with the message that they most hold the pass. (It might be better to come up with better-matching metaphors than I'm offering....)

Life's little ironies

(As opposed to the big irony about which I posted yesterday.)

I've been dieting and losing weight. I look slimmer, especially in pants, but what I didn't expect is that most of my skirts are riding lower and therefore look longer. Which makes me look shorter. Slimmer but shorter.

Since I mainly wear skirts in warm weather, and fall and winter approach, I'm OK with the tradeoff, for now.

Two cautionary tales

Yesterday my husband embarked upon life as a civil servant. (He will be aiding the national defense -- so he will be among perhaps a minority of civil servants who are performing functions authorized by the Constitution.) He immediately encountered two distinct instances of the federal bureaucracy fouling things up, in a way we may ponder as we contemplate a greater federal role in American health care and/or business.

As part of "in-processing", he took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. This was his first opportunity to do so, and he was proud and moved to make such a declaration. He was discomfited to discover that the form given him to sign, while properly allowing him to "swear (or affirm)", included the language "so help me God". He asked the lady in charge whether he could cross out the religious language and was told, "No, you can't change anything on a federal form." The form by which he was to declare his allegiance to the Constitution violated the Constitution.

He was troubled enough to do some research when he had the chance. As it turned out, a previous version of the form specified that, should the "appointee" choose to affirm, the words "swear" and "so help me God" should be stricken out. The fine print on the current form is less specific, and was perhaps intended to be less restrictive: "Note - If the appointee objects to the form of the oath on religious grounds, certain modifications may be permitted pursuant to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Please contact your agency's legal counsel for advice." The bureaucrat in charge of the procedure was unaware of this language, and her statement directly contradicted it. Even had she made some attempt to comply with it, the form gave her little guidance and no convenient way to obtain any.

Our next surprise concerned health insurance. My husband and I had both grown up hearing that federal employment offers particularly good benefits. This may be, but it turns out he is not yet covered by his new insurance. In fact, he -- and the rest of the family -- won't be covered for more than two weeks. None of his previous employers -- government contractors -- have left him out in the cold this long. This instance of federal management of health care has not inspired us to optimism where Obamacare is concerned.

One big crowd

So we have estimates from 60,000 to 2 million Tea Party protesters in D.C. on September 12, 2009. A time-lapse aerial view from 8 to 11:30 a.m., while not great quality, shows a Whole Lot of People -- and that's at a time when many were in very long lines for subway tokens and the like. I'm no expert, but I would bet a fair amount of money, which we are not flush with right now, that the crowd was well into the six figures. Over 200,000 would be my conservative guess, and over 300,000 would be my if-I-were-taking-a-flyer guess.

Still at it -- more emails to Congress

Here's my latest, sent to my senators and to the members of the Senate Finance Committee:

------

Dear Senator:

I am disturbed about some features of the emerging possible compromise on health care legislation. I read that this compromise is likely to include mandatory insurance for individuals, as well as requirements that insurance companies cover those who are already known to need continual expensive care.

There is something fundamentally un-American – not to mention unconstitutional – about the federal government telling people that they must purchase an expensive product for their own use that they do not believe they need. The comparison to auto insurance misses the mark, as that requirement is: (1) a feature of state, not federal law; (2) confined to those who choose to drive; and (3) mainly designed to ensure that the driver can pay for injuries or property damage his driving inflicts on others.

As for requiring insurers to cover all pre-existing conditions, this further distorts the already strained meaning of “insurance”. Insurance is a form of hedging one’s bets, protecting against unlikely events (e.g. fire, accident). Where known medical conditions will require extensive future medical care, “insurance” is a misnomer. Placing the costs of such care on insurers is a kind of tax, which will be passed on to all the insurers’ customers in the form of higher premiums. Such higher premiums are one of several reasons that people currently satisfied with their insurance cannot count on their employers’ retaining such insurance.

The question of how to help Americans pay for chronic health conditions is a difficult one, and we need a great deal more brainstorming on the subject. Greatly expanding the federal bureaucracy, either expanding or imitating existing bureaucracies that are financially imperiled and administratively lackluster, cannot be the best answer available.

There are good ideas already out there for addressing many other aspects of health care. By letting Americans use pre-tax dollars to pay for both health care and health insurance, we can disconnect health care from employment and let people be cost-conscious health care consumers. Health insurance could then fill its more appropriate role, instead of being used for predictable everyday health care. Allowing insurance companies to compete nationwide would greatly reduce cost and expand choice.

Please do not allow the push for a bipartisan solution [replaced in some emails with: the demands of party leaders] to obscure the merits of the issue.

Sincerely,

Karen A. Wyle

UPDATE: Holy cow! My readership just jumped substantially. Hello and welcome, new folks! Please feel free to comment.

If we have 4 years to play with....

My email to my senators:

Dear Senator Bayh/Lugar:

In his speech to Congress last night, Pres. Obama said his plan would go into effect in four years, so that we'd have time to get it right. Conveniently, that gives him time to get re-elected before the actual effects of his plan become evident.
If we have that much time, how about starting over and getting the right bill? How about letting individuals use pre-tax dollars to buy health care and/or health insurance, and letting insurers compete nationwide? How about examining some of the interesting proposals various economists and other experts have been floating?
Please don't let yourself be stampeded into supporting a flawed bill that, according to the President himself, doesn't need to go into effect any time soon.

Karen A. Wyle