Saul Friedman: Gray Matters -- Ronald Reagan: Revisited and Revised

Saul Friedman: Gray Matters -- Ronald Reagan: Revisited and Revised: "

Can anyone guess which modern statesman said the following, which I shall quote at length?

'Facing conditions of absolute inhumanity such as those which now exist in Sudan and Somalia, does not the world have a moral responsibility to act? To choose the right to passage, to impose minimum order and provide sanctuaries of relief? In parts of Africa today, mankind is an endangered species.

'Have we come to the point where we must set up human preserves as we have for rhinos and elephants? If so, then let us do it, and do it now...We must work toward a standing U.N. force-an army of conscience-that is fully equipped and prepared to carve out human sanctuaries if necessary...I can think of no more honorable mission for a soldier or his country..'

I do not think that people like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich or the rest of today's so-called right winged Republicans would even come close to agreeing with that or recognizing who said it. But then they didn't really know the man who said it, the man they profess to idolize and emulate; whose name they take in vain attempts to justify their extreme politics.

The speaker was of course Ronald Reagan, and soon, on Feb. 6, it will be his 99th birthday and plans are afoot among the righteous right to celebrate extravagantly his centenary. But I came to know him during more than eight years that I covered his campaigns and his presidency. And we corresponded after that. Those words I cited above was the Reagan who had learned a few things and grew during and after his presidency. This was the Reagan who, plainly put, was not anywhere as near as radical or as nuts as the people who now control Republican politics.

Reagan was popular because he was an inclusive person, with not a trace of wingnut vindictiveness -- even towards a critical reporter. He was close to then Democratic House Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O'neill; one of his first appointments was that of former Senate Democratic Leader Mike Mansfield as ambassador to Japan.

The speech, to which I'll return, was entitled 'Democracy's Next Battle,' and was delivered on Dec. 4, 1992, at the Oxford Union Society, in England, just a month after Bill Clinton was elected president. The students of the storied debating society had expected to poke fun at Reagan, then 81. But they greeted his unexpected words with a prolonged standing ovation.

I know, this was the same Ronald Reagan who ushered in the era of greed and huge deficits, who approved selling arms to Iran to finance the anti-communist Contras in Nicaragua; who turned the cold war icy with his railing against the Soviets as the 'evil empire'; who sent troops into hapless Grenada, probably to mitigate the killing of 240 Marines in Lebanon; who gave us Star Wars, the myth of a missile defense that's still with us.

I know about these Reagan misadventures, for I covered and wrote critically about all of them, first for Knight Ridder Newspapers, then for Newsday. And I laughed at Reagan's foibles, as when he came back from Central America and exclaimed that 'there are a lot of different countries down there.' Or when he visited a souvenir stand in China and proclaimed that it was a sign that free enterprise had come to Beijing.

Nevertheless, I am a bit of a Reagan revisionist, for it's important to contrast his presidency and his brand of conservatism with that of the former and unlamented occupant of the White House and the right-wing reactionaries who have hijacked conservatism, which my dictionary defines as 'a political orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes;' that would include radical changes to the Constitution.

It is true that Reagan came into office with a promise to cut taxes by a third, which he did with the help of Democrats who piled on their own tax breaks. Signed in 1981, it was the largest tax cut in history. But Reagan's chief of staff was Vice President George H.W. Bush's former campaign manager, James A. Baker, a pragmatic conservative hated by White House right-wingers like Pat Buchanan. Fearing that the tax cuts were too deep, that the deficit was growing too quickly, Baker and the Senate Republican Leader Bob Dole, also a pragmatic conservative, combined in 1983 to get Reagan's grudging approval for the largest tax increase in history.

In 1976, when Reagan ran in the Republican primaries against then Vice President Gerald Ford, he suggested Social Security be made voluntary. He also believed that Medicare was a step towards socialized medicine. But in the presidency, he came to understand that Social Security would collapse if it was made voluntary and he made no move to change its nature. Instead, the commission he appointed under Alan Greenspan, made changes that saved Social Security for 75 years. Nor did he make a move to privatize or cut Medicare. Perhaps that's because he admired and voted for Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman before he became a Republican; he didn't allow ideology to get in the way of good sense and politics.

He was late coming to the fight against AIDS, as the epidemic grew in the Reagan years. But he did come at the urging most importantly of Elizabeth Taylor. And despite support from right-wing fundamentalists, Reagan, the first president who had been divorced, did not engage in gay bashing and he did not press his views against abortion, probably because he had too many Hollywood friends who were gay or had abortions.

It is also true that Reagan, against the advice of Baker and most of his generals, sent Marines into Lebanon in 1982, ostensibly to protect the airfield and other installations as the Israelis were pursuing the fleeing Palestinians. Reagan was effusively pro-Israel, but the pragmatists argued that even if the marines were supposed to be neutral they would be seen as on Israel's side and get deeper into the quagmire. Sure enough, after Reagan ordered a battleship to fire on positions that had been attacking the Marines, came the bombing of their barracks. I was there when Reagan took responsibility, then pulled the marines out.

Finally, despite his cold war rhetoric, Reagan was among the first leaders in the west (with then British Prime minister Margaret Thatcher) to recognize that Mikhail Gorbachev was a genuine reformer and, as I reported in these columns earlier, he met with the then Soviet leader in Moscow to declare the era of the evil empire was over. And together they concluded treaties to reduce, for the first time, the number of nuclear weapons. They are still in force

I've always believed that when he called for Gorbachev in 1986 to 'tear down' the Berlin wall, he knew it would happen. And it did, when George H.W. Bush was president and Baker was his secretary of state. Bush, as vice-president, had thought Reagan naive about Gorbachev and as president delayed for a year agreeing to the arms treaties that Reagan made possible.

Indeed, in one meeting with Gorbachev that I covered, in Iceland, Reagan and Gorbachev nearly agreed to banish all nuclear weapons, until their advisers intervened. And after Reagan's death in 2004, Fred Kaplan concluded in Slate that 'the end of the Cold War may be the most oddball chapter in the history of the 20th Century. How fitting that, then, that the two most oddball leaders, Gorbachev and Reagan, made it come to pass.'

Consider, please, what would have happened in those days if Baker or Reagan had listened to the naysayers and cold-warriors in the Reagan administration, like the Buchanans, Rumsfelds, Cheneys, and Richard Perle. What if we were listening to the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly then?

Reagan was a conservative to the core, but he grew in office. Once, before he became president, he suggested the U.N. should 'sail off into the sunset,' forgetting that the organization is on the east coast.

As he told the Oxford students, 'I did not always value international organizations and for good reason, they were nothing more than debating societies...But with the end of the cold war, the U.N. was also liberated...As long as military power remains a necessary tool of modern existence, then we should use it as a humanitarian tool and rely more on multilateral institutions-such as NATO and the U.N....The noble vision of the U.N.'s founders is now closer to realization.'

I was told Reagan wrote most of the speech, which concluded, 'My young friends, I hope with all my hearts that your days will be great, not on the battlefield, but in science labs, the operating rooms, performing arts halls and wherever empires of the mind can be assembled.'

Perhaps such eloquence is one of the reasons President Barack Obama admired and understood Reagan's legacy better than those who call themselves his heirs.

Saul also writes for Time Goes By (www.timegoesby.net)

"

Paul Abrams: Limbaugh Lauds (Socialist) Medical Care in Hawaii

Paul Abrams: Limbaugh Lauds (Socialist) Medical Care in Hawaii: "

'but I think the most likely reason of all was the Grinch had a heart two sizes too small' ('How the Grinch Stole Christmas,' Dr. Seuss).

According to Rush Limbaugh, the health care reform that may be passed by Congress is socialism. Yet, it bears a striking resemblance to the universal healthcare system that just treated him in Hawaii that prompted his remark: 'there is nothing wrong with the American health care system. I received no special treatment.'
Yes, Rush. That's the point! American medicine is superb--for those who can get it. And, in Hawaii, no one gets special treatment, because everyone can get it. [Er, by the way, just to help you out, Rush, a fair percentage of your listeners do not know Hawaii is part of the United States, so clarify that for them...otherwise, they will wonder about you]

By accepting socialist medical treatment in Hawaii, therefore, Rush Limbaugh has shown that, when one is ill, what matters is the availability of quality health care, even if it is socialist.

Rush follows a long litany of conservatives, such as all Members of Congress that have a medical office paid for by taxpayers available in the Capitol, by Dick Cheney who had socialist pacemakers implanted paid for by the government, and George W who had a government-paid socialist colonoscopy while in office. Members of Congress over 65 get single-payer socialist medical care from Medicare. Hawaii has had nearly-universal employer-mandated health insurance since 1974. Although its Pacific Island location makes the costs of everything--from gasoline to milk to ice cream to housing--the highest in the nation, health care premiums in Hawaii, for comprehensive care with small co-pays and deductibles, are nearly the lowest and their costs per medicare beneficiary are the lowest in the nation.

Why? There are a variety of reasons, most traceable to universality. With everyone covered by primary care, emergency room visits tend to be for real emergencies, not the non-emergent care mainland ERs dispense for people without coverage. That reduces the costs of ERs and the costs of non-emergent medicine since patients can be handled less expensively and more effectively by their primary docs. Hospitals have not overbuilt, acquiring expensive machines to compete with their neighbors for patients. Insurance companies have instituted screening and other measures to improve wellness among their covered populations.

We can all be pleased that Rush appears to have survived his encounter with socialist medical care. He seems to be very happy himself, commenting on the results of a socialist angiogram that showed no disease in the arteries that feed his heart muscle. Now, of course, Rush does not live in Hawaii and so his costs are not covered by the Hawaiian insurance system, but having that 'socialist' system for more than 3 decades has not reduced the quality of the care he received. Who would have thunk it!

If Hawaii-style medical care is good enough for Rush Limbaugh, it is good enough for me.

Thanks Rush, and with it my hopes that your medical insurance covers all your costs and that the greatest country in the world can make that same care available to everyone.

Happy New Year!

"

Speaking in Tongues - The New York Review of Books

Speaking in Tongues - The New York Review of Books

Reality Check: Senate Health Care Debate Viewing Guide

Reality Check: Senate Health Care Debate Viewing Guide: "

As the Senate debate gets into full swing this week, we thought we'd address a half dozen of the myths you will most certainly hear from critics of health insurance reform. If it feels like you have heard these arguments before, it is because you have... you have heard them over and over and over again. You heard them during the mark ups in the House and the Senate, you heard them at townhalls this summer, and you heard them on the House floor. However, repetition does not equal veracity. These claims have been proven false by independent fact checkers time and again. Consider the below information, a viewing guide of sorts for the Senate floor debate.

1.       CLAIM: Health insurance reform will cut seniors' guaranteed Medicare benefits.

REALITY: Health insurance reform will not cut guaranteed Medicare benefits.  Period.  Perhaps unlike many of these same critics who have repeatedly proposed privatizing Medicare or slashing benefits, President Obama believes Medicare is a sacred trust with America's seniors.  Reform protects and strengthens Medicare, adding 5 years to the Medicare trust fund by cracking down on waste, fraud and abuse. It doesn’t use a dime of the Medicare trust fund to pay for reform and does not cut guaranteed Medicare benefits.

Specifically, reform will end wasteful overpayments to insurance companies through Medicare Advantage, and there is no evidence these overpayments improve the quality of care for seniors, yet they contribute to higher premiums for all Medicare beneficiaries.

Here's what the defenders of the status quo won't tell you: the Senate bill will provide a 50% discount to initially reduce the cost of prescription drugs for seniors who fall into the gap in coverage known as the Donut Hole.  It will make preventive services free. It will also improve quality of care for seniors in too many ways to list here – all of this we imagine will be very good news for these critics who are so concerned about our seniors.

2.       CLAIM: Health insurance reform will open the door to spending government funds on abortion.

REALITY:  This legislation is about health insurance reform---protecting Americans from unfair insurance industry practices, providing affordable options and lowering costs.  This is not about changing the status quo on abortion policy.   Health insurance reform legislation should respect existing conscience statutes and follow existing policy that  prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the woman is at stake.  At the same time it is important that the legislation not erode the insurance choices women have today.  So to be clear: The President believes federal funds should not be used to pay for abortions.  And health insurance reform should not erode the insurance choices women have today. 

3.       CLAIM:  Health insurance reform will make coverage available to undocumented immigrants.

REALITY:  We have procedures in place to ensure that undocumented immigrants don't participate in the exchange – they're ineligible, and we will use well-tested verification systems that states have been using successfully for decades to screen out people who are not authorized to receive public benefits.

Nothing in the bill authorizes employers to hire and provide insurance to undocumented immigrants; this is already against the law and that won't change.  The President has also said he is committed to enacting comprehensive immigration reform, something that should not be tackled piecemeal in the health insurance reform legislation.   

4.        CLAIM:  Health insurance reform will create new financial burdens for small businesses.

REALITY: Health insurance reform will actually lower costs for small businesses. Small businesses will have access to the insurance exchange, where small businesses and their employees can pool together with millions of other Americans to increase purchasing power and benefit from increased competition. 

A report from the Business Roundtable concluded that the cost-savings measures in the health reform bills could lower health care spending per employee by $3000.   From the beginning, we made clear that most small businesses would be exempt from the employer responsibility requirement, because we do not want to increase the burden on small business.   But at the same time, most small business owners want to provide coverage, which is why millions of small businesses would receive a tax credit to make coverage for their employees even more affordable.   Today, small businesses pay 18% more for health insurance than large companies do -- with reform, small businesses and their employees will be able to purchase insurance through the insurance exchange, where pooling and competition will lower prices.  Today, small businesses can see their premiums skyrocket if just one or two workers fall ill and accumulate high medical costs -- reform will prevent insurance discrimination based on health status, meaning that small businesses will no longer be unfairly penalized if a worker falls ill.  To be clear, those critics who claim to be standing up for small business are actually just fighting tooth and nail against all of this – hopefully this good news will turn them around.

5.        CLAIM:  Health insurance reform will cost jobs.

REALITY: Few claims more fundamentally misunderstand both health care and the economy more than this one. Right now the skyrocketing health care costs represent one of the biggest disadvantages our economy faces, and lowering the cost of healthcare will help jumpstart job growth. The President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) estimated that if the annual growth rate of health spending slows by 1.5 percentage points per year, then the unemployment rate could fall by 0.24 percentage point and jobs could rise by 500,000. A newly released Congressional Budget Office report finds that premiums will fall by as much as 3 percent in the large group market and 2 percent in the small group market after reform, showing that employers will reap the cost savings necessary to hire more workers and invest in new property, plant, and equipment. And of course, as discussed in #4, reform will lower costs for small businesses through tax credits and pooled purchasing on a competitive exchange – reducing their competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis larger firms, thus helping to fuel a key engine of job creation in the economy. As icing, of course there will also be plenty of new jobs for doctors, nurses, medical technicians who are updating our health IT, medical researchers, on and on...

6.        CLAIM:  Health insurance reform will not lower costs.

REALITY:  The CBO just recently had more great news for these critics, finding that lower administrative costs, increased competition, and better pooling for risk will mean lower premiums for American families.  We had been trying to tell this good news to these critics for some time, but hopefully the CBO will break through where we couldn’t. Among the CBO’s findings:

Americans buying comparable health plans to what they have today in the individual market would see premiums fall by 14 to 20 percent.
Those who get coverage through their employer today will likely see a decrease in premiums as well.
And Americans who currently struggle to find coverage today would see lower premiums because more people will be covered."

Legalized Gambling!! Henry Blodget: Moral of Insider-Trading Bust: Only Fools Try to Beat the Street

Henry Blodget: Moral of Insider-Trading Bust: Only Fools Try to Beat the Street: "

It's the myth that will never die.

Jim Cramer has made a career out of promoting it, as have countless other stock-picking gurus since the dawn of time.

What is this myth?

If only you 'do your homework,' analyze those financial statements, and listen to such-and-such a stock-picking guru, you, too, can pick stocks well enough to beat the pros.

If there's one thing that should ring out loud and clear from the recent Wall Street insider-trading bust it is that this is preposterous.

Stock trading is a zero-sum game. You cannot make money from trading without other people losing money.* In order to win the stock-picking game, therefore, you have to out-trade other traders. You have to beat the other traders by enough to offset your costs of research and trading (which are deducted from your returns). And you have to do this consistently, year after year after year.

Even without illegal inside information, your competition is intense. The hedge funds, mutual funds, and other professional traders you are competing with have, at a minimum:

* Professional analysts and traders with decades of experience who work 20 hours a day

* Huge industry Rolodexes filled with primary contacts at companies whose stocks they trade

* Research budgets that run into tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year

* Dozens of Wall Street brokers calling all day with every scrap of info they can dig up

* Instant access to 100% of Wall Street research and analysts from hundreds of firms

* Proprietary research services that can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year

* High frequency trading computers that act on any market info in milliseconds

To win the stock-picking game, you have to consistently beat folks who have all of these advantages and more.

And then there's the sort of information that the busted hedge fund, Galleon, is alleged to have traded on. Yes, some of the information is clearly illegal inside information. The rest of it, however, is what is known on Wall Street as an 'edge.'

Most hedge funds would describe most of the information Galleon traded on as 'research.' Many would not trade without it -- because then they would be like all the dumb suckers who don't have an edge.

Information like Galleon's is everywhere on Wall Street. So in addition to every other advantage professionals have over you, there's also that.

On Mad Money tonight (and every night), Jim Cramer will tell you which stocks to buy -- and why. What he won't do is explain how the information he gives you will enable you to out-trade firms like Galleon.

The folks at Galleon watch Jim Cramer, too, of course -- as do the folks at most other Wall Street firms. They watch him out of the corner of their eye while they tee up trades based on much better (and much more narrowly distributed) analysis and information.

Perhaps you are one of the folks who deludes themselves into thinking that with an hour or two a day of 'homework,' you can out-trade Galleon. If so, Galleon is thrilled to have you in the game. As are the hundreds of other firms who make their money whipping suckers like you.

There's a saying in poker: If you don't know who the patsy is at the table, it's you.

Next time you feel like bellying up to the Wall Street poker table, therefore, ask yourself again who the sucker is. Chances are, it's not Galleon.

* Many people don't understand this. They confuse market gains and trading gains. To make money in the stock market, all you have to do is own stocks when they go up. This is NOT a zero-sum game. It's investing.

See also:

Stock Market Fools: 15 Gurus Shamed By The Rally Of The Century

"