HorsesAss.Org

As the nation remains transfixed on the moral, ethical and legal controversies surrounding the Terri Schiavo case, I’d like to mention three words that are sure to have many of my righty readers cartoonishly blowing steam from their ears: “universal health care.”

Mention of universal health care, single-payer or otherwise, is guaranteed to illicit cries of “socialized medicine,” and all the attendant fear-mongering and name-calling that generally goes with it. I fully expect to be regaled with apocryphal tales of hapless Canadians forced to wait months for an emergency appendectomy, or some other such frightening anecdote. Labels like “socialist” and “communist” will be flung like frisbees, with the comment thread eventually and inevitably devolving into personal attacks on Teddy Kennedy, as if the blame for our nation’s ballooning health care costs and millions of uninsured can be pinned on his actions that fateful night in Chappaquiddick.

Much of the opposition to universal health care stems from an irrational fear of rationing… irrational, not because it won’t lead to rationing — it will — but because rationing is already an integral part of our current health care system (assuming you can call what we have now a “system.”) The difference is, under a health care system that guarantees universal access, rationing will be based on reasoned criteria that prioritizes resources towards where they provide the best return, whereas under our current non-system, the reverse is often true. For example, while millions of the uninsured, many of them children, go without basic preventative health care, more than half of Medicare dollars are spent on patients who die within two months.

Not to mention patients like Terri Schiavo, whose hospice care taxpayers are largely paying for through Medicaid.

I am in no way suggesting that Terri Schiavo should be allowed to die because her life isn’t worth the expense. I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of people who uncompromisingly support an absolute right to life, yet who are just as uncompromising in their refusal to pay for it. Reasonable people may disagree as to whether a blastocyst or a brain-dead woman are living, human beings the same as you or me, but nobody would deny the humanity of a sick or injured child who shows up, uninsured, at a hospital emergency room. We care for the sick, even the indigent, because there is no question that morally it is the right thing to do. The costs of their unpaid medical bills are ultimately absorbed by the rest of us.

And yet millions of uninsured Americans are denied routine medical care, and face financial ruin should a major illness strike… circumstances that are not only cruel, but create gross, economic inefficiencies throughout our health care system, raising the costs for all.

And so I ask those who support keeping Terri Schiavo’s body alive at any expense: should taxpayer money be used to pay for her care? And if so, why shouldn’t it also be used to pay for a mammogram for the gal flipping your burger at McDonalds, or a dental exam for a farm laborer’s child? How are we respecting the “sanctity of life” when we lavish taxpayer dollars on the dying, yet ignore the basic health care needs of so many of the living? And if prayer vigils are to be held, why not also hold them for the uninsured who lose their jobs and their homes and their life savings to a family illness?

Yes, universal health care will result in rationing to some degree, but we are already rationing now… and not just our tax money and medical resources, but also our compassion and our prayers. Isn’t it time for the most vocal proponents of life, to put their money where their mouth is?

A quick link to David Postman’s update on the GOP felon-voter list in the Seattle Times. As has been reported previously, the list includes hundreds of names of people convicted as juveniles, who did not have their voting rights revoked. Now as the various counties attempt to slog through the list, more and more errors are being uncovered.

“It’s really inconsistent information. But 1,100 felons voting makes a great headline,” said Yakima County Auditor Corky Mattingly.

She said that earlier this year, the county reviewed a list of 15 alleged felon voters compiled by Rossi backers but not submitted to the court. She said four of those 15 appeared to have voted improperly.

Republicans now say 31 felons voted illegally in Yakima County. Mattingly said she’s seen the list of names, but there are no birth dates or criminal case numbers, which makes the list difficult to research.

A 73 percent error rate? Is that an anomaly? Apparently not:

Whatcom appears to be one of the few counties that has completed a thorough review of the list.

According to the Republicans, the county had 13 illegal votes cast by felons. But county Auditor Shirley Forslof said a review by the court clerk found many errors:

Four of the voters in question were convicted of felonies but had their voting rights restored. One was entitled to vote because the conviction was for a gross misdemeanor, not a felony. One was free to vote because the felony case had been dismissed. Three on the list didn’t vote in the November election, contrary to what the Republicans had said.

The remaining four voters, Forslof said, appear to have voted illegally, and their names have been forwarded to the county prosecutor.

I know, I know… whether the final number is 1,100 or 400 or something in between, hundreds more felons voted illegally than Christine Gregoire’s margin of victory, and that, say Rossi supporters, should be enough to set aside the election. Yeah, well, perhaps in their minds, but not in a court of law, where Rossi will actually have to prove that these illegal votes and other errors changed the outcome. As GOP allegations consistently prove to be less reliable than the election itself, even their proportional analysis strategy looks unlikely to provide the desired result.

The Rossi camp went into the contest expecting to find thousands of illegal votes and irregularities, if not evidence of actual organized fraud and corruption. Whether their optimism (or was it pessimism?) was due to faulty initial analysis or a genuine faith in the incompetence and immorality of Democrats — or just plain blind hope — their investigations simply haven’t panned out. The normally scandal hungry MSM, that was so eager to jump on earlier allegations, has become rightfully skeptical of charges of a “stolen” election… and even right-wing talk radio seems to be growing tired of the twice daily spreadsheets from that guy on the other blog.

The truth is, we had a run-of-the-mill imperfect election, with the normal assortment of randomly distributed errors. Under those circumstances it simply was not possible to confidently determine the winner of such an extraordinarily close election. Some people understandably find such uncertainty reason enough to call for a new election. But unfortunately for them — and Dino Rossi — our election statutes do not.

A couple weeks back I blogged about a Frank Rich column on the dirtiest joke ever told, and how Gilbert Gottfried’s telling of it was such a welcome relief just two and half weeks after 9/11. Every comedian tells the joke differently — it’s more of concept than a script — but for those interested in hearing a version for themselves, I’ve found a clip of a rendition from South Park.

Be forewarned, if you are easily offended, do not view the clip.

Really. You’ve been warned, so I’ll have absolutely no sympathy for people who find this offensive. (Personally, I found the sheer outrageousness to be fall-down-funny.)

So here’s a question: are right-wing “news” hosts like Fox’s Sean Hannity and MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough stupid, lazy or just plain liars? Both hosts repeatedly touted Dr. William Hammesfahr as a “Nobel Prize nominee,” Hannity eight times during a single hour-long program, and Scarborough four times. But according to Media Matters:

Hammesfahr, a Florida neurologist disciplined in 2003 by the Florida Board of Medicine who claims he can help Terri Schiavo, testified during an October 2002 court hearing on the Schiavo case that his claim to be a Nobel nominee is based on a letter written by Rep. Mike Bilirakis (R-FL) recommending him for the prize. But Bilirakis is not qualified to make a valid nomination under the Nobel rules.

Reading the so-called “nominating letter,” I’m not sure Rep. Bilirakis is even qualified to be a congressman:

It is my distinct privilege to present to the Committee, Dr. William M. Hammesfahr, for the Nobel Peace Prize in Medicine.

“The Nobel Peace Prize in Medicine”…? What a ditz.

Anyway, seeing as all you need these days to get a nomination is a letter from a slightly confused Floridian, my mother has written a letter nominating me for the Nobel Peace Prize in Medicine too. She always did want me to be a doctor.

Wow. Last week’s open thread collected over 450 comments. I guess I’m pretty much superfluous.

Okay, I’ve heard enough bellyaching already from editorialists whining about legislation to amend Initiative 601’s spending limits. Passed in 1993, I-601 uses population growth plus inflation to calculate increases in the state spending cap; any spending above the limit requires a two-thirds vote in both houses.

In practice, it only takes a simple majority to amend or suspend I-601 (as has been done in the past,) and thus the super majority provision is utterly toothless — not to mention, undemocratic. And it has probably always been unconstitutional to boot, as only the state Constitution can dictate the majorities required to pass legislation. Complain all you want about removing this provision, but if you really want to require a super majority vote, you need to do it by constitutional amendment.

Yesterday the Tacoma News Tribune chimed in, criticizing SB 6078 for seeking to change the way the cap is calculated (the new formula would link growth in spending to growth in personal income): “Gutting I-601 spending limits a bad idea.”

Gutting? Gimme a break.

As has been explained by the Gates Commission, and nearly every reputable expert on these issues, the economic metric that most close tracks growth in demand for public services is aggregate growth in personal income. This is because most government services are commodities, and like most commodities, consumption increases with income. (Hey… that’s free market economics for you.) As the TNT points out, a growth in personal income calculation would indeed result in a higher spending cap than the current formula.

But to continue to impose a spending limit calculated on population plus inflation, is to ensure that over the long run, government services simply cannot keep pace with demand. And that is exactly what has happened since I-601 passed in 1993: expenditures as a percentage of personal income have declined steadily. And with non-discretionary spending like health care rising much faster than inflation — and thus eating up a larger portion of the budget — the impact of the spending limit is exaggerated on essential services like K-12 education.

K-12 Expenditures per $1,000 Personal Income
(State & Local Government)

In fiscal year 2002, Washington ranked 41st among states in state and local government K-12 spending as a percentage of personal income, down from 36th in 2000. As long as we continue to rely on a structurally inadequate tax system, and tie our spending limits to unrealistic economic metrics, we can expect the level of essential services to continue to decline.

I’m a big proponent of balanced budgets, and I’m not necessarily opposed to spending limits as a guideline for writing them. Indeed, I’m a helluva lot more fiscally conservative than most of my righty critics would imagine (or my liberal cohorts might like.) But my main complaint with I-601’s spending limits calculation, is that like our current tax structure, when projected out into the future, it guarantees that we will have a smaller and smaller government providing fewer and fewer services… without ever asking voters if this is what they truly want!

I welcome a knock-down, drag ’em out, no holds barred public debate on the proper size and scope of government, because I believe that most voters want safer streets, better schools, and all the other essential services that government provides. But the Republican leadership refuses to talk about the real issues, because they understand that the status quo will eventually produce their libertarian dystopia, without debate, if only they show a little patience.

Attacking SB 6078 as “gutting” I-601, ignores the whole purpose of imposing spending limits in the first place. I-601 was not intended to shrink the government, it was intended to keep government growth in line with our economy… and to this end the limit factor should reflect an accurate economic metric. It’s simple math.

To support the current formula is to support the Republican effort to dramatically shrink government by “starving the beast,” a disingenuous strategy to impose a radical vision of government they couldn’t possibly win at the polls. It is a stunningly clever act of political legerdemain, that distracts the eye by focusing exclusively on taxes, while ignoring the services they finance. Then, while voters aren’t looking, tada… government services disappear.

But there’s nothing magical about I-601’s population plus inflation calculation; it simply does not allow our government to keep pace with the growing demands of our growing economy, and thus necessarily results in diminished services over time.

Math may not be as entertaining as magic… but it’s a damn more reliable way to predict the future.

The Seattle P-I reports that King County prosecutors have identified 93 more felons from a batch of 100 names on the GOP’s felons list. Hmmm, 93 percent… not bad, I guess… not as good as KC Elections, but not bad.

Not that it matters as far as Rossi’s contest is concerned:

In pretrial rulings, Bridges has said it won’t be enough for the Republicans to establish that the number of illegal votes exceeded the margin of victory; they would have to show that Gregoire owed her win to illegal votes.

Um… which I suppose is why GOPolitburo Chair Chris Vance is so confident:

“We have a slam-dunk case.”

Yeah… right Chris.

FYI, the P-I also has an article on the new statewide voter registration database, that should go a long way towards enabling election officials to properly purge the rolls of felons in the future.

The Olympian has managed to wrangle up US Rep. Adam Smith for an online chat, Friday morning at 9:30 am. It’s unlikely they’ll get too many questions in the pipeline on such short notice, so if you have a query for the congressman, go to their pre-chat and submit it now.

In a terse, one-page decision, the United States Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Terri Schiavo’s parents to order her feeding tube reinserted.

The appeal went first to Reagan appointee, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has responsibility for cases emanating from the 11th Circuit. He then referred the case to the full nine-member court. This marks at least the fifth time the SCOTUS has declined to get involved in the case. According to the AP, the court’s decision was not surprising:

Not only had justices repeatedly declined to intervene in the Schiavo case on prior occasions, but they routinely defer to state courts on family law issues. Judges in various Florida courts have sided with Schiavo’s husband in the 15 years since she suffered brain damage.

Meanwhile the New York Times has an interesting profile on Dr. William Cheschire, the man at the center of Jeb Bush’s last ditch attempt to seize control of Terri Schiavo’s fate: “A Diagnosis With a Dose of Religion.”

There are an awful lot of lies being told by the Bush administration and its allies in their battle to dismantle Social Security through privatization, but perhaps the biggest lie of all is “$11 trillion dollars.” That’s the “unfunded obligation” President Bush tells us Social Security will supposedly accrue if nothing is done to fix it:

You realize that this system of ours is going to be short the difference between obligations and money coming in, by about $11 trillion, unless we act. And that’s an issue. That’s trillion with a “T.”

It’s nice to know the president is keeping up on his spelling, but he needs to do a little more work on his math. For according to the ever useful FactCheck.org, that mind-boggling number is calculated using the Social Security Administration’s new “infinite-horizon model,” which attempts to project revenue and obligations not 75 years into the future (as has been the standard model,) or even 100 years, but… well… forever.

Sound a little silly? Well the American Academy of Actuaries, a nonpartisan group with the really boring job of setting the standards of practice for US actuaries, points out that even 75-year projections are filled with uncertainty, but an infinite projection… well that’s basically worthless. In a letter sent to the Social Security Advisory Board, the Academy is unequivocal:

The new measures of the unfunded obligations included in the 2003 report provide little if any useful information about the program’s long-range finances and indeed are likely to mislead anyone lacking technical expertise in the demographic, economic, and actuarial aspects of the program’s finances into believing that the program is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated.

But then, that’s the whole point of the infinite-horizon projection isn’t it… to mislead Americans by conjuring up a really humongous number in order to scare us into supporting a bogus “reform” package? But how many Americans would take this number seriously if they understood, as NPR reported today, that the projection is based on the truly laughable assumption that the retirement age will stay at 67, while average life expectancy peaks at 150 by the year 2200!

150? Forget about Social Security’s unfunded obligations… how are we going to pay for all the court-ordered feeding tubes we’ll presumably need to sustain a nation of sesquicentenarians?

Knute Berger addresses the issue with a calmer, more measured voice than mine, but comes to the same conclusion.

I don’t know whether or not Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube should be pulled. I don’t know whose wishes her husband or parents are trying to honor, other than their own. A husband sees his wife in an irreversible vegetative state and naturally wants to end such suffering; her parents see the child they gave life to and aren’t ready to give up hope. There is nothing unique in this struggle or the pain it causes

Share:

• Facebook
• Reddit
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Print

By a 2-1 margin, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to order reinsertion of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube, saying her parents “failed to demonstrate a substantial case on the merits of any of their claims.”

One can only hope that our Supreme Court justices — who routinely refuse to grant stays of execution for prisoners whose cases have likewise exhausted all other legal appeals — act as judiciously as the lower courts, and allow Terri Schiavo to die in peace, ending this ordeal for her and her family. A quick and decisive ruling would place an exclamation mark on the shameful efforts of Republican lawmakers to exploit this personal tragedy in order to curry political favor with conservative Christians.

But the Schiavo case is only one example of the Bush Administration’s crusade to impose the morality of a powerful constituency onto the majority of Americans. The Seattle P-I reports today on the ongoing legal battles of a young Navy wife from Everett, who had to sue the military to pay for an abortion of her anencephalic fetus. Two years later, the woman’s attorney is shocked at how aggressively the federal government continues to appeal the case, seeking to force repayment of the $3,000 cost of the procedure:

“I can’t understand the impetus behind the government pursuing this case.”

I can. This is a culture war, and like all wars, the aggressors are willing to sacrifice a few innocent bystanders… even a 19-year-old woman carrying a fetus without a brain.

The so-called “right to lifers” are so absolute in their moral certitude, that they cannot distinguish between a real human life and a brain-dead or brainless person with no consciousness whatsoever. To them, promising medical research on a clump of cells is the moral equivalent of the Holocaust, were Nazis conducted vicious medical experiments on fully-formed and fully-conscious Jewish children.

One wonders if extraordinary measures were used to save the empty shell that Ronald Reagan’s body became after Alzheimer’s cruelly withered his brain, and how his family might have reacted if the courts or lawmakers had imposed them? These are the types of painful, personal decisions that families must make for their loved ones every day… and these decisions should remain personal, no matter what somebody else’s bible may say on the matter.

The same people who speak so loudly about the “defense of marriage” are the same people fighting to deny Michael Schiavo one if its most basic legal rights: the power to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse. Court after court has affirmed that Michael Schiavo has this right, and that his decision to remove the feeding tube was both medically proper and ethical.

To deny the Schiavo family the right to make its own medical decisions would not only be hypocritical, it would be a dangerous sign of a government increasingly willing and able to impose itself into our personal lives.

UPDATE:
By an 11-2 decision, the full court upheld a decision by a three judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, to deny Terry Schiavo’s parents’ request to have her feeding tube re-inserted. Meanwhile, the Florida Senate once again rejected a bill, 21-18, that would have prohibited patients like Schiavo from being denied food and water.

Next stop, the US Supreme Court, which has already refused to hear the case on three separate occasions.

FYI: TJ over at Also Also has some nice analysis of the legal machinations behind the recent court rulings.

There were a lot of very important announcements by very important people yesterday. Secretary-General Kofi Annan unveiled his plan to overhaul the United Nations, which could lead to adding Brazil, Germany, India, Japan, Egypt, and South Africa (or Nigeria) to the Security Council. Governor Christine Gregoire released her budget proposal, which included fully funding the class size and teacher pay initiatives and adding thousands of poor children to state health insurance rolls, while closing a $1.6 billion budget shortfall with only $200 million in new taxes.

So of course, with all this important news breaking around me, I decided to spend the afternoon attending King County Executive Ron Sims’ “State of the County” address.

Speeches like this are generally staged events, newsworthy only in and of themselves — their contents rarely produce breaking stories, and this one didn’t disappoint. Oh, there were a few interesting tidbits, including a proposal for wireless internet access in White Center and on Metro buses, and the announcement of an innovative “Healthy Incentives Program” for county employees. But mostly Ron just laid out his vision for the region’s future, ten years and beyond.

So why bother covering the address if it didn’t generate much actual news? Well, first of all… I’m a blogger Jim, not a reporter! And second, Ron’s vision for King County’s future could have more direct impact on the day-to-day lives of its residents than anything Kofi Annan or Christine Gregoire might pronounce.

Although soon-to-be-unemployed Councilmember (and Sims challenger) David Irons myopically mocked Ron for his ten-year plan — “You can’t set your sights that far out” — this is exactly the kind of farsighted leadership our region needs to meet the demands of a county projected to add 300,000 new residents by 2050. In addition to recounting some of the recent accomplishments of the county and its residents, Ron laid out a broad list of priorities for the coming decade, including protecting our water supply, cleaning up Puget Sound, reining in health care costs, increasing affordable housing and eliminating homelessness, reducing the spread of HIV/AIDs and tuberculosis, investing in our transportation infrastructure and more.

Talking to a reporter afterwards, Irons attacked the speech as “a nice fairy tale, with no substance,” but really, how much substance do you expect from a speech like this? Hell, President Bush made privatizing Social Security the focus of his domestic agenda in his State of the Union address, yet months later he still refuses to paint a little flesh on the bones of his proposal. So no, Ron didn’t provide a lot of details, but then this was just a speech, not a budget proposal or a piece of legislation.

Moving on to the next reporter, Irons called the speech “a nice fairy tale, with no substance,” charging that while Ron’s speeches are all “warm and fuzzy,” he implements his policies with “an iron fist.” Irons said he wants government to be just as “warm and fuzzy” as Ron’s speeches… too bad Irons himself comes across as “cold and slick.”

With the next reporter, Irons mixed things up a bit, referring to Ron’s speech as “a nice fairy tale, with no substance.” Yeah… we get the point.

To me, the contrast between Ron’s passionate, forward-looking speech, and Iron’s cynical, dour rebuttal illustrates not only the fundamental difference between the two candidates, but between the parties they represent. Democrats like Ron view government as a powerful tool for positively impacting the lives of its citizens, whereas Republicans traditionally view government as a necessary evil, that they might as well control, if only to prevent the other guys from doing too much harm. In short, Democrats believe in government, while Republicans, well… don’t.

Much of Ron’s speech was actually spent congratulating individual citizens for their contributions to the county; on seven occasions he asked individuals to stand up and receive recognition, alone or in pairs, for their hard work and dedication. Jose Abarca, an officer at the Regional Justice Center in Kent, who just returned home from Baghdad after a two-year military leave, received a standing ovation. (Appropriately, the citizen who received the second-most applause was also in uniform: Porter Mathis, the Metro Transit bus driver of the the year.)

Irons dismissed the entire event as little more than a staged press conference, countering with what I cynically hope will be his campaign slogan: “Everything is not wonderful.” Both his observations may technically be correct, but they completely miss the point. Voters aren’t dumb. We know that everything is not wonderful, and we don’t expect it to be. What we expect government to do is to constantly help make things a little bit better.

And that’s what Ron offered yesterday, a positive, passionate vision for the future that builds on his and our accomplishments of the past… while all Irons offered was criticism. He derides Ron for daring to plan ten years into the future, because like most politicians, his horizons don’t stretch beyond the next election. Listening to Irons talk to reporters yesterday, it made me wonder if he actually believes in the job he’s seeking.

I know a lot of people think Ron is vulnerable because of backlash over Sound Transit, the CAO, and the trumped up election controversy. It is true that Ron’s brand of strong, aggressive leadership can rub people the wrong way, but sometimes it is the only way to get things done. No doubt there are a lot of voters angered over his strong-arm handling of the Brightwater waste water treatment facility, but fortunately for Ron, most of them live in Snohomish County.

And if Irons is the best candidate the GOP can throw up against him, that too will be fortunate for Ron. Having nothing better to do is not enough of a reason to run for county executive, and voters will quickly sense that Iron’s candidacy stems more from expediency than passion and commitment.

I don’t know if I’ll ever attend another State of the County address, but I’ve got a feeling this wasn’t Ron Sims’ last.

Just a reminder that the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday) at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Ave. E., starting at 8pm. I may stop by briefly after 9pm, if my daughter gives me permission.

It is a sad statement on our current state of politics when an unabashed liberal like me waxes nostalgic for good ol’ Goldwater Republicans. Reading L.A. Heberlein’s guest column in today’s Seattle P-I (“What happened to real Republicans?“), I couldn’t help but feel wistful for the days when political debates were more about disagreements over method than madness. Heberlein, who worked his precinct for Barry Goldwater, appears equally wistful, wondering if the people who call themselves Republicans today… really are.

When I was a Teenage Republican, all Republicans knew the 10th Amendment by heart and Republicans resisted the increasing power of the central government. Now Republicans leap over one another to make the federal government ever more powerful. It is Republicans at the federal level who now want to tell states whether they can allow medical marijuana or assisted suicide, or even who can have a driver’s license. They want to tell the states who can get married. Imagine a Republican of my youth thinking the federal government should dictate policy to local school boards.

When I was a boy, Republicans cherished personal liberty. Creating secret no-fly lists and spy-on-your-neighbor programs, turning medical records over to police, holding people without trial in hidden military compounds, saying it’s legal to torture them — that’s how we thought only Communists would behave.

Above all, the Republicans back in those days were the party of responsibility. They understood a balance sheet. […] The ones running Washington, D.C., today inherited a $236 billion budget surplus, and like kids on crack with a credit card, turned it into a trillion-dollar deficit almost overnight.

Heberlein goes on to ridicule the Bush administration’s proposal to privatize Social Security, asking the obvious question of where the money will come from to pay for those drawing out now, and incredulously providing the answer.

Listen, you’ll never believe this. The plan is to borrow it — to borrow a trillion more dollars.

Where have all the real Republicans gone? I have some sad news for Heberlein… this GOP is no more the party of Goldwater than it is the party of Lincoln. It’s the party of Bush and DeLay.

Now don’t that make you old-timers feel proud?