Not So Scary Swine Flu

This is a cross posting from a blog I wrote for the Republican Jewish Coalition.

For months now we have been hearing, reading, and watching sensationalized reports in the news about the emerging pandemic that is “Swine Flu”. Early projections from the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology estimated between 30,000 and 90,000 deaths this year! When stories began to emerge during the summer that the deaths hadn’t reached the catastrophic proportions originally projected, the response from authorities was that dark and dismal days were ahead of us once the dreaded flu season descended upon us. (Cue scary music.)

We were scared. MSNBC made a map. And Johnson & Johnson, makers of Purell hand sanitizer, made a fortune.

But reports surfaced this week that the H1N1 virus might not be as deadly as originally thought. Doctors are now estimating somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 deaths this year can be expected from the virus, and most of them will be amongst those who already had some underlying condition. As chilling as that may sound, though, it is absolutely no different from situation we face every winter with the regular old seasonal flu.

On average, about 36,000 people die after catching the seasonal flu virus. And, as with the H1N1 deaths, they usually happen in people with already weakened immune systems. To be clear, though, tens of thousands of people dying from a viral infection each year is nothing to be taken lightly. But when the average number of seasonal flu deaths is roughly smack dab in the middle of the projected H1N1 mortality projection, it sounds like the extent of our Swine Flu paranoia should end where it usually does during every other flu season.

So, what do we do? Well, aside from viewing the President’s science advisors as melodramatic doom-mongers, I’m going to take a deep breath, relax, and enjoy my winter just as I have done every previous year.

40 Weeks

Today is Election Day in Virginia and New Jersey. New York is having a special election as well. News commentators both right- and left-of-center agree that the results today could set a precedent that resonates into the 2010 election.

And I couldn't agree with them more.

The November 3, 2009 elections fall exactly 40 weeks after the inauguration of President Barack Obama; exactly 40 weeks after Nancy Pelosi's Congress established a strong Democrat majority; exactly 40 weeks after the beginning of what was promised to be a "new direction" for the United States. That being said, a baby conceived on January 20, 2009 (Inauguration Day) would be born right around today.

In a very profound way, this is the baby of President Obama and Speaker Pelosi's policies, and delivery day is today. Being the happy parents, our chief executive and head legislator have a lot riding on these results. And tonight we all get to see whether their progeny leans red or blue.

And You Thought 1000 Pages Was Bad

This past summer, Congress unveiled HR 3200, a health care reform bill introducing the "public option". That bill, which encountered incredible scruitiny and backlash from Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike, was more than 1000 pages long.

But recently, majority leaders in Congress topped their previous feat, introducing an edited version of HR 3200.
Was it reduced in size for efficiency? No.
Were the concerns of those opposed to a government takeover of health care taken into consideration? No.
Is it still 1,000 pages long? No.

The current version, fully amended on October 14, is now more than 1,900 pages long (that's almost double the original version!).

According to David Harsanyi's column in Real Clear Politics,

In the new world, your insurance choices will be tethered to decisions made by people with Orwellian titles ("1984" was only 268 pages!) like the "Health Choices Commissioner" or "Inspector General for the Health Choices Administration."

...

...as you flip through the pages of the House bill, you will notice the word "regulation" appears 181 times. "Tax" is there 214 times. "Fees," 103 times. As we all know, nothing says "affordability" like higher taxes and fees.

The word "shall" - as in "must" or "required to" - appears over 3,000 times. The word, alas, is never preceded by the patriotic phrase "mind our own freaking business." Not once.

There's a saying that goes "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." If I was going to take that saying to the next level, it would go "And if it is broke, make sure you're actually fixing it, not making things worse."

With a price tag of almost a trillion dollars, I'm hard pressed to see how a government run insurance corporation will be any better than a privately run insurance corporation. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, health care is broken, and does need fixing. But before going ahead with anything, let's make sure the solution being presented will actually cure our woes, not put a Bandaid over one wound and tear open others.

When Moderates Do Well

It seems recently that the voices congressional moderates on both the Republican and Democratic side of the aisle have been largely disregarded as meek and wishy washy. But today, moderate Democrats took a stand for which I must give them applause.

Politico reports...

'A White House effort to undermine conservative critics is generating a backlash on Capitol Hill — and not just from Republicans.

“It’s a mistake,” said Rep. Jason Altmire, a moderate Democrat from western Pennsylvania. “I think it’s beneath the White House to get into a tit for tat with news organizations.”

Altmire was talking about the Obama administration’s efforts to undercut Fox News. But he said his remarks applied just the same to White House efforts to marginalize the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a powerful business lobby targeted for its opposition to climate change legislation.

“There’s no reason to gratuitously piss off all those companies,” added another Democrat, Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia. “The Chamber isn’t an opponent.”'

While the extreme left "progressive" wing of the party is applauding the White House's divisiveness, I'm glad to see the moderates taking a stand in favor of civil dialogue and debate. Even members of the "mainstream" press corps are taking a stand against the White House's media war.

It's interesting that in their criticism of Fox News and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, David Axelrod and Rahm Emmanuel use Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity as examples. While no one will dispute their overtly displayed political leanings, it's important to distinguish between their shows and the news. Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly (and Limbaugh, Ingraham, etc. on the radio) are news opinion shows. To parallel, it would be like criticizing a newspaper editorial for being biased. It's supposed to be!

In comparison, say what you will about the Bush Administration's policies and press accessibility, they never overty demonized left-leaning news stations for their biased news opinion shows. Despite venomous rhetoric continuously being streamed by commentators like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow, not only did Bush Administration officials not attack them, they repeatedly met their attacks head on, participating in televized debates.

My respect goes to the moderate Democrats in Congress who stood up to the divisive, partisan politics of the Obama Administration.

Of the People, By the People, For Countrywide Insurance

Congress has reached a new level of immaturity. This week, congressional Democrats, let by Congressman Edolphus Towns (NY) decided to lock the minority Republicans out of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee room.

The most logical question would be why the majority in the committee made all that effort to change the locks on the committee room door so that the minority couldn't meet.

It was retaliation.

According to The Hill...

Towns’ action came after repeated public ridicule from the leading Republican on the committee, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), over Towns’s failure to launch an investigation into Countrywide Mortgage’s reported sweetheart deals to VIPs.

For months Towns has refused Republican requests to subpoena records in the case. Last Thursday Committee Republicans, led by Issa, were poised to force an open vote on the subpoenas at a Committee mark-up meeting. The mark-up was abruptly canceled. Only Republicans showed up while Democrats chairs remained empty.

The story continues (bold font added)...

A GOP committee staffer captured video of Democrats leaving their separate meeting in private chambers after the mark-up was supposed to have begun. He spliced the video to other footage of the Democrats’ empty chairs at the hearing room, set it to the tune of “Hit the Road, Jack” and posted it on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s minority webpage, where it remained as of press time.

Towns’s staffers told Republicans they were not happy about the presence of the video camera in the hearing room when they were not present. Issa’s spokesman said the Democrats readily acknowledged to Republicans that they changed the locks in retaliation to the videotape of the Democrats’ absence from the business meeting even though committee rules allow meetings to be taped.

So, let me see if I can summarize this.

• There's a committee in Congress that was formed specifically to investigate corruption and misuse of government funds.
• Countrywide Insurance allegedly misused government funds to create sweatheart deals for VIP clients.
• Republicans in the aforementioned committee wanted to investigate.
• Democrats in the aforementioned committee said "no".
• Republicans videotaped Democrats ditching the aforementioned committee's hearing that would have required Countrywide to submit their financial records for investigation.
• Democrats were embarrassed.
• Democrats ordered the locks to be changed on the aforementioned committee room's doors, so that Republicans couldn't get in.

There are two things I gather from this: (1) Congressman Towns has the maturity level of a 5th grader. (2) This reeks of elected officials playing the lobbyist game.

When the Road Less Traveled is Paved Better

This afternoon I went to a luncheon with a scholar named Ilan Berman, the Vice President for Policy at the American Foreign Policy Council. His new book, Winning the Long War, delves into how we can best solve the crisis in the Middle East.

Compared to the policies of this and the preceding administrations, his ideas without a doubt fall into the road-less-traveled category. In this case, though, the road(s) being traveled by the government's foreign policy experts is long, windy, and full of potholes. From my vantage point, Berman's road is much better paved.

Berman's long-term solution to the U.S.'s political problems in the Middle East was framed like an issue advocacy campaign. He used terms like "constituency", "strategy" (it has a very specific meaning in campaign jargon), "branding", and "voter education". He even considered who was the best spokesperson to carry that message.

By no means is the Berman plan as politically sexy as being able to say on the House floor that $2 million was allocated to build a new school in Rwanda. But ensuring that the generation of individuals currently coming of age in the Arab World are given an education that encourages free thought, self growth, and tolerance toward all people (including the West) will build a world where terrorism is frowned upon, and where development is more than a buzzword used amongst U.N. bureaucrats.

Why I Am Against the Congressional Health Care Plan

It's the middle of autumn, and the debate on health care reform is going on its sixth month as a top tier issue around the country.

Liberals, progressives, and Democrats have put forth their reasons justifying public, government-run health coverage. Republicans have put forth reasons against it, and submitted alternatives.

Both have it wrong.

People in the United States have been brought to hysterics by special interest campaigns, and now think that the only way the health care crisis can possibly be solved is by forcing a few hundred people in Washington DC to pass overarching legislation more rapidly than ever before. Essentially, it's a policy that blasts shot-gun pellets of health care "solutions" to the entire country.

Unfortunately, the problems individuals face are different depending on where one lives. Income relative to expenses are different between urban centers and rural areas; hospital availability between rural and urban areas vary widely; and lifestyle differences between the east coast, west coast, and central U.S. make for different health care needs.

Instead of spraying health care like a shotgun, this needs to be approached with rifle accuracy.

Instead of shooting for extreme, rapid overhaul, forced by one government entity (the federal government), why not allow the states to take care of themselves? They know what their residents want. A state assemblyman in Los Angeles, CA or a state senator from Winchester, VA will each know how to better serve residents in Los Angeles and Winchester than a U.S. senator from some other state nowhere near them. And governors are far more aware of what their respective states need than the President, who needs to oversee 50 drastically different states.

What's more, if each state passed unique health care reform bills, the country as a whole would be able to see which option works better. If reforms passed in Arkansas don't work as well as the reforms passed in Georgia, other states with plans similar to the former can go back to the drawing table and rethink their plans. Unfortunately, if Congress and the federal government pass a flawed plan, fixing it will be a must more difficult task.

What are your thoughts? I am interested to hear your comments.