The Social Security Administration admits that it may have cut between 8000 and 10,000 $250 stimulus checks recently for dead people. The excuses provided are that they were in a rush to get the checks by June and they didn't know that the people are dead. Of particular note are examples of people like Romolo Romonini, the deceased father of Antoniette Santopadre from Long Island. Romonini left the US in 1933 and was never in the social security system, returning to the US for a brief visit in 1969, and died in 1975. But his check did reach the Santopadre household before Antoniette's own check did... When asked by the local Fox affiliate in returning the check to the federal government whether she expected the money to be put to good use, she responded that she expects that the federal government is "pissing it off". (I just LOVE spunky taxpayers!) [Let's look at the bright side: The USPS managed to deliver a government check to the next-of-kin; of course, the Social Security Administration is the last to know...]
Now I do understand that dead people often vote for Democrats, but I don't think any stimulus is going to be effective in their cases. However, I am interested in knowing when those checks are cashed... After all, there's an election next year....
Obama's Position on Traditional Marriage Is Nuanced
The travails of Carrie Prejean are well-known; the reigning Miss California and runner-up in the Miss USA contest was asked a litmus-test question on gay "marriage" by a gay activist judge; Carrie Prejean gave a firm but politely stated response in support of traditional marriage. It's very clear that the judge in question, and likely other politically-correct judges, marked her low, in reprisal for the position she took, not her poise or how well she stated her opinion, probably costing her the Miss USA title. (Donald Trump confirmed that the celebrity blogger gave her very low marks but curiously expressed a willingness to let him judge in future contests.) Ms. Prejean has been the target of horrific character assassination with questionable photos being released in a blatant attempt to force Donald Trump, whom owns the Miss USA/Miss Universe pageants, to strip her titles. I think Trump made the right decision to confirm that Prejean will serve out the remainder of her term; if he hadn't done this, it would have set a bad precedent. Whereas I'm sure that Donald Trump loved the publicity and thinks that it's probably a good thing people will be more interested in the interview competition in the future (we have gone beyond the tough issues of whether the ladies are for peace or against poverty), I do not think this is the proper format for exploring politically contentious issues.
That being said, I got tired of hearing Prejean and various Fox News commentators repeating the line that she has the same point of view as Barack Obama. Let's make this absolutely clear: No, he doesn't. It is true that he has paid lip service to traditional marriage, but he did not support Proposition 8 in California, which restored the original traditional definition of marriage carrying with over 60% of the vote in a constitutional amendment (proposition 22 in 2000, which I supported as a California resident). California also carried at the same time a domestic partnership/civil union concept.
I made a point about this in my last post when I discussed at a high level Obama's nuanced views. He and many national Democrats make dubious distinctions: e.g., they're for charter schools but against private school vouchers. They're for traditional marriage (but also for domestic partnerships/civil unions, which many social conservatives reject), but against a simple constitutional amendment which simply defines marriage as between a man and woman. (There is subtle propaganda to make an affirmative declaration of traditional marriage a prohibition against gay "marriage".) Personally, I do not like seeing the US Constitution tampered with unless the courts impose alternative views by judicial fiat.
In 1996 Congress passed, and Clinton signed into law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which basically said that states which did expand the concept of marriage in unconventional ways could not force their views on marriage on other states, e.g., through reciprocal recognition policies. So say, for instance, Utah has a traditional marriage law. A Utah gay couple goes, say, to a state with minimal residency requirements and permits gay "marriage", then returns to Utah, and then sues to get the "marriage" recognized in their home state. This would effectively strip away Utah's ability to enforce its own definition of marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act was to protect states' rights.
What's particularly notable about this is that 1996 was the first year an obscure Chicago lawyer named Barack Obama ran for public office as a state senator. Obama opposed the Defense of Marriage Act--in fact, the same stand continued through last year's campaign. If one is truly committed to traditional marriage, this is unacceptable: it's essentially allowing to other states determine your own state's traditional definition of marriage.
We are already seeing somewhat of a bandwagon effect of same-sex marriage sweeping across the Northeast, with New Hampshire's governor agreeing in principle to sign, and New York's governor introducing a similar measure. What is really curious is that the White House has somewhat backed off on repeated vows to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act; perhaps they're concerned about giving the GOP a wedge issue for next year's election. The fact is that the traditional definition of marriage has repeatedly won across the vast majority of states where it's been put on the ballot; in the one state where it had a narrow setback (Arizona in 2005), it carried by double-digits last year. I'm also sure that Obama realizes that the unprecedented black vote in California last November, despite Obama's not endorsing Proposition 8, heavily supported it and probably made the difference in it passing.
Pelosi Promises a Health Care Bill by the End of July
One of the things I tried to point out in yesterday's post is the fact that Obama has had a number of reversals, which I believe results from a rush to judgment. One such example is Obama's nuanced reversal on private school vouchers in DC. Supposedly now he's agreed in principal to allow the students whom have been attending private school with vouchers to complete their tenure at the school with funded vouchers (but he will not allow new students into the program). [I wonder if he was motivated by not wanting Sasha and Malia to find out the reason some of their new friends in school aren't coming back next year is because he's no longer allowing their friends to have the financial aid they need to attend...] I think it's morally unconscionable to maintain a double standard on opportunity (i.e., not allowing new student vouchers).
The health care portion of our GNP is at least 15% and growing. Yet Speaker Pelosi is suggesting what I find to be an extraordinary rush to judgment regarding a highly critical portion of our economy and the obvious point being that we cannot afford to short-shrift full and frank discussion of this vital issue.
I will probably write future, more comprehensive posts on the issue of health care, but I find much in Newt Gingrich's approach relevant to my view:
http://www.healthtransformation.net/cs/insure_all_americans In particular, project director David Merritt discusses streamlining state-based regulations which are barriers to entry, subsidized high risk pools, mandates for insurance or bonding at a particular level of income, health savings accounts, improved access to pricing data, and equal protection for tax-advantaged benefits.
What we also have to do is muddle through some disingenuous apples-and-oranges comparisons, e.g., in costs between the US and Canadian systems and in terms of administrative expenses between the private industry and the government. Let me just list a few illustrative comments here. For example, in comparing costs in the Canadian system, suppose you have a serious disease, but because of resource issues, you have to postpone treatment a few months. There are a number of hidden costs you need to flesh out--say, for example, what if you had treated the disease more aggressively at the get-go, like the patient likely would be able to do in the United States. If the disease has progressed by the time the patient is treated, it could be much more expensive to treat. Also, it's likely because of the patient's health condition, he or she may also have more work absences which is a cost not incurred under prompt treatment conditions. Some studies examining the hidden costs conclude the administrative costs in Canada are actually higher than in the US.
In terms of comparing the private sector and public sector solutions, we have to understand that we have different pricing systems. In essence, Medicare and similar programs establish by fiat rates which are below the going market rate--something that cannot continue if a government program cannibalizes existing private sector business. Also, some studies suggest that federal administrative costs listed in the budget are something like a third of actual costs, the federal government doesn't do the same due diligence in cost containment (e.g., anti-fraud), and many assessments of private sector administrative costs lump in profits, which are not costs (i.e., private sector costs are overstated). We could continue, but the point is that liberals are not making intellectually honest comparisons, and we need to have a full, frank debate, something artificially short deadlines cannot deliver. We cannot afford haste. I want all my fellow conservatives to repeat the same mantra time and again: "Haste makes waste."Obama hasn't learned yet despite the stimulus and budget bills.
