Our Values

Healthcare Reform: Do you support the Catholic Bishops opposition?

The House is poised to vote this week on healthcare reform, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops opposes the bill, according to a statement issued Monday by Cardinal Francis George, president of the conference.
    In it, he reiterates the Catholic Bishops’ long support of healthcare reform: “The Catholic Bishops of the United States have long and consistently advocated for the reform of the American healthcare system. Their experience in healthcare and in Catholic parishes has acquainted them with the anguish of mothers who are unable to afford prenatal care, of families unable to ensure quality care for their children, and of those who cannot obtain insurance because of preexisting conditions.”
    The issue is abortion, specifically, the use of federal funds to pay for abortion services. The House version of the bill includes the so-called Hyde amendment that prohibits this use of funds. The Senate version, however, does not—and that’s the bill that might pass the House this week.
    The Senate version, the Cardinal says, “expands federal funding and the role of the federal government in the provision of abortion procedures. In so doing, it forces all of us to become involved in an act that profoundly violates the conscience of many, the deliberate destruction of unwanted members of the human family still waiting to be born.”
    The costs of not reforming healthcare are appallingly high. Doing nothing imperils the health and well-being of millions of Americans. (Scroll down to see yesterday’s post on the costs.)
    Should abortion be the issue that turns support into opposition of the Senate version of the reform bill? For many, abortion is the moral linchpin—the use of federal funds for abortion services negates all the good that would be done through healthcare reform.
    For others, it’s another application of Fiat justitia ruat caelum: “May justice be done though the heavens fall."
    Do you oppose or support healthcare reform that includes the use of federal funds to pay for abortions?

    PLEASE, CLICK TO ADD A COMMENT before you go.

Healthcare Reform: No reform? What’s cost of doing nothing?

So what if healthcare care reform doesn’t happen? What’s the cost of staying with the status quo?
    Yesterday, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute released a report with the answer. It’s not a pretty one.
    Healthcare costs will jump 34% in just five years. Ten million more Americans will be added to the rolls of the uninsured, bringing the total to 59.7 million.
    In a decade, healthcare costs will be 79% higher and 67.6 million Americans will be uninsured.
    Who will take the hardest hits? Middle-income families, says the report, along with older adults.
    Expect premiums to double in ten years. Employees (if they are covered at all) and employers will pay a lot more.
    Work for a small or medium-sized firm? Forget it. More and more of these firms won’t even offer healthcare insurance. Wait a minute—aren’t these firms the source of job creation? Oh, well.
    “By examining the best available economic data, we can project what will happen to our health care system if we continue along our current path,” says an author of the study. “The bottom line is that we are likely to see a significant deterioration in who has health insurance coverage in this country, coupled with untenable increases in private and public spending.”
    So that’s it. The costs of doing nothing make doing nothing an unconscionable moral choice.
    What do you think of the study’s findings? Do they strengthen your resolve for reform? Or, are they just painting an overly gloomy picture?
    (Follow this link if you’d like to read the entire report.)

    PLEASE, CLICK TO ADD A COMMENT before you go.

Healthcare Reform: Isn’t it time to pass that darn bill?

We've reached the healthcare climax: The U.S. House is supposed to vote on the reform bill this week.
    Will it pass?
    The outcome is still up in the air. Democrats don’t have all the votes they need, according to a Reuters report yesterday, but House leaders are confident they will. Republicans are bent on preventing the bill from passing. "We're going to do everything we can to make it difficult for them, if not impossible to pass the bill,” said House Republican John Boehner, quoted by Reuters.
    America is watching. The issue now tops the public’s agenda, according to Pew’s News Interest Index. This is a weekly poll “aimed at gauging the public’s interest in and reaction to major news events.”
    Thirty percent name healthcare reform as the story they most closely followed last week. Only 18% of news coverage was devoted to this topic. Next on the interest list is the Chilean earthquake (22%), then the economy (13%).
    Most Americans (52%) still think healthcare reform won’t pass this year, but that's actually an improvement: Before Obama started his latest full-court press, the doubters represented 62% of Americans.
    And, a growing number of Americans—now up to 39%—say that a reform bill will past in 2010.
    Some say the vote on healthcare reform is also the vote on the Obama presidency. If it doesn’t pass, he won’t be able to get other important legislation passed, and he’ll join the list of well-intentioned, ineffectual one-term presidents.
    Where do you stand today on healthcare reform? Are you following the news on it closely?
    If you had the deciding vote in your hand, how would you cast it?

    PLEASE, CLICK TO ADD A COMMENT before you go.

Bad Politics: Should greenbacks ... flood elections? Obama v. Court?

Who’s right in “Obama v. Supreme Court”?
    Here’s the gist of the issue: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled recently that it’s OK for corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on political ads in elections. Call it one dollar, one vote: If you have lots of dollars, you have lots of votes. Of course, ads are not votes, but they do carry weight—and corporations have a lot of weight to throw around.
    Obama lashed out at the U.S Supreme Court in his State of the Union address, criticizing the Roberts’ court ruling. Using the address this way appears to be rare, if not unprecedented.
    And it irritated the heck out of the justices, especially Roberts himself. This week he struck back, calling Obama’s remarks “very troubling” and saying that the address has “degenerated into a political pep rally.” Roberts made these comments in respond to a question posed by a University of Alabama law student, according to media sources like the Huffington Post.
    The White House responded immediately with a statement to reporters by spokesman Robert Gibbs, according to media accounts. "What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections—drowning out the voices of average Americans. The President has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response."
    That’s Obama v. Supreme Court. Not a real case, but a moniker for the struggle between a conservative court and a liberal president.
    Was Roberts right to strike back? Was Obama right to make his criticism during the annual address?
    Or, do we just have more bad politics in a broken Washington?

    PLEASE, CLICK TO ADD A COMMENT before you go.

Bad Politics: Will Ralph Reed Make Politics Better?

Ralph Reed is back. And his eyes are on Iowa politics. Will he make things better or worse?
    Reed is the former executive director of the Christian Coalition, an organized founded by Pat Robertson. Under Reed’s leadership, the coalition was credited with mobilizing the might of the Religious Right to elect many conservative Republicans to local, state, and federal office.
    Reed faded in prominence due to the decline of the Christian Coalition, his association with convicted felon Jack Abramoff, and other setbacks.
    But Reed’s back. He’s founded a new conservative organization, the Faith & Freedom Coalition, which he says played a major role in recent Republican victories like Scott Brown’s in Massachusetts.
    This week, Reed was in Iowa, vowing to “take back” the Hawkeye State. He could do it if he raises $500,000, he says, and started the fundraising process during his speech, according to an article in the Iowa Independent.
    “We’re not going to leave the express advocacy during an election to the radical left, MoveOn.org and labor unions anymore,” Reed said, quoted in the article. “We’re going to do it, and we’re going to get people who share our values elected to office, from governor all the way down to the statehouse and school boards all across the state of Iowa.”
    It’s the Religious Right versus the Radical Left, from his point of view. (Scroll down to read this week’s posts on the extreme partisanship of American politics.)
    What do you think of Reed’s new political project? Do you share its goals?
    Will Reed’s comeback improve bad politics? Or make them even worse?

    PLEASE, CLICK TO ADD A COMMENT before you go.

Bad Politics: Think Washington's broken? You're not alone ...

The vast majority of Americans are disgusted with the bad politics in Washington these days, according to a new McClatchy-Ipsos poll. (Watch a video about the poll here.)
    "Overall, the poll suggests a level of disgust with politics as usual," says a senior vice president with the polling firm. "Americans are basically angry at incumbents and Washington. This isn't necessarily directed at any one party. I have my doubts about whether the Democrats will be obliterated. Yes, they'll lose seats, but there is a general backlash against all incumbents."
    In fact, 80% of Americans say that Washington is broken. It can’t get things done because of the partisanship, bickering, and fighting. Only 17% say that Washington is not broken.
    Who’s to blame?
    About one third (33%) blame the Republicans; 27% blame the Democrats. Which party do you blame?
    The good news is that the poll found an overwhelming consensus among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents: They all agree that Washington is broken, according to the poll. About 80% of each group said so.
    Pessimism is also widely held. Over 60% of Americans say that things in the U.S. are heading in the wrong track, up from 48% a year ago.
    How about you? Have you gotten more pessimistic about the future of America?

    PLEASE, CLICK TO ADD A COMMENT before you go.

Bad Politics: Is political gridlock in Washington worse than ... ever?

Clearly, this subject is urgent to many Americans right now. On Monday, we had a rise in readership for OurValues.org—even though only a tiny number of the readers who visit ever leave comments.
    One perspective is: If you take the time to leave thoughtful comments, which accumulate on our front page, you've got a chance to influence thousands of readers. Or from another perspective: Please, join the few and the brave who add their thoughts—because this Web project is all about encouraging civil dialogue.
    You shouldn't have any trouble forming an opinion this week. No question, Americans are buzzing about these questions: How bad is the political gridlock in Washington? Is it worse now than ever before? Or are we simply romanticizing the past?
    The political past wasn’t so romantic and partisan politics have been bitter before. But what we’re seeing today is the worst it is has been in modern times, according to political scientists like my colleague Morris Fiorina. As he said in a recent NPR interview, "People who remember the period of the mid-20th century likely remember a time of a lot of cross-party coalitions in Congress," he says. "But it's been terrible for a long time."
    Republicans and Democrats really do live in different moral universes. (Scroll down to see yesterday’s post.) And these universes have grown apart over time, making the compromises we saw in the past virtually impossible now—even unthinkable.
    Each major political party has become more homogenous over time, Fiorina argues, now representing pure political points of view. This means the centrist—always willing to compromise—is just about extinct, replaced by extreme partisans. For them, compromise is unthinkable.
    What this means, I think, is that most American voters face equally unattractive opposite extremes at the polls. These are unattractive in the sense that neither represents the more centrist views of most Americans. The only way to register discontent, however, is to vote one way in one election, the other way in the next.
    So, voters disenchanted with the Bush years voted for Obama in 2008 and gave him majorities in Congress. Then, unhappy with deficit spending, stimulus packages, and taxes, voters start to swing the other way—witness the election of Senator Scott Brown in “Democratic” Massachusetts. The mid-term elections may see even more swings to the right.
    Are you fed up with the political gridlock in Washington?

    (NOTE on the U.S. map, above: On Monday, we published a different map that caught readers' eyes—so, today, we're showing you a finer-grain look at the political landscape. This is a Wikipedia Commons map showing the 2008 presidential winner by U.S. counties. You can click on the map to enlarge it slightly.)

    PLEASE, CLICK TO ADD A COMMENT before you go.

Do Democrats and Republicans live in different moral universes?

Republicans and Democrats are further apart now than ever before. Their relations seem more like do-or-die battles than political opposition. The enmity of the two parties makes bad politics because it’s virtually impossible to get anything done.
    Do Republicans and Democrats live on the same planet? Actually, they live in different moral universes, says Paul Krugman in last Friday’s New York Times.
    The recent political brawl about extending unemployment benefits is a case in point, Krugman says. Extending unemployment benefits during a deep recession makes good economic sense. It’s one of the most effective forms of stimulus, he argues, citing the impeccable source of the Congressional Budget Office.
    Many Republicans, however, believe that unemployment benefits simply reduce the incentive to go out and get a job. This is standard Republican reasoning—and it might make sense in a good economy, that is, one that has lots of job openings. In a bad economy, with few jobs available, it doesn’t make sense.
    Is there a moral difference underling these differences in economic reasoning?
    When Democrat Merkley pleaded with his fellow Senators to help America’s working families, many of whom need extended unemployment benefits, Republican Bunning responded with, says Krugman, an “expletive.”
    I was curious about said expletive. The choice of expletive might reveal something. Merkely himself says it was “tough luck,” noting in his Huffington Post article that a cruder word was actually used.
    Politico.com printed it: “Tough s—t.” This captured a dominant feeling among Republicans.
    So, what do you think? Do Republicans and Democrats live in different universes?

(Note on the map above: You can enlarge this Wikipedia Commons image of U.S. Senate affiliation by clicking on the map.)

    PLEASE, CLICK TO ADD A COMMENT before you go.

Trials and Travails of Toyota: But do we believe the fix ... is fixed?

Is Toyota the car with a mind of its own?
    “It’s doing it again, Mom!”
    That’s what a boy said to his mother as their 2008 Toyota Avalon accelerated on its own—and this was after the recalled car was fixed, according to ABC News.
    Call it the fix that isn’t.
    Toyota is recalling millions of vehicles worldwide, making repairs or adjustments that Toyota executives say will solve the unintended acceleration and braking problems.
    Yet 10 Toyota owners have filed new complaints with the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) after their cars were recalled and supposedly fixed.
    Problems include uncontrollable acceleration, acceleration surges, and the inability to stop.
    Has Toyota compounded its crisis by making the wrong fix? If so, then the hits to its reputation for quality have doubled. And so have the opportunities for Detroit automakers to capitalize on Toyota’s problems.
    But let’s not forget that the NHTSA shares some of the blame. This watchdog agency didn’t believe the initial complaints of unintended acceleration. And, it apparently lacks the knowledge and sophistication to investigate complex electronics and computer problems.
    “They understand floor mats, they don’t understand microchips,” said Senator Jay Rockefeller, according to the ABC News report.
    What do you make of the latest news on Toyota? If you own a Toyota, are you worried about it?
    If not, do you tend to notice Toyotas on the road more than ever?
    I do.

    PLEASE, CLICK TO ADD A COMMENT before you go.

Trials and Travails of Toyota: Now, is "Buy American" getting easier?

Is the Detroit auto industry poised for a comeback?
    I’m not sure if all the players will survive, but Ford is making a comeback. The only automaker that didn’t need a bailout posted record sales in February, according to sales figures released this week.
    Ford’s sales are up 43.4% from a year ago, while GM’s are up only 12%. Ford surpassed GM in the U.S. market—a position that GM held for years.
    The same thing happened in Canada. Ford of Canada’s sales are up 51% from a year ago, placing the company ahead of GM in all of North America. This makes nine consecutive quarters of gains.
    How did Toyota do?
    Sales fell by 9% in the past twelve months. Recalls of millions of vehicles for accelerator and braking problems, coupled with its mishandling of quality issues, took their toll. Whether the breach of trust will have lasting effects depends on how well the Japanese automaker responds to its crisis. (Scroll down to read this week’s posts on Toyota.)
    Perhaps the stars are realigning in Detroit’s favor. The quality of American cars now rivals Toyota’s. Toyota’s vaunted reputation for quality is tarnished, and may have lasting effects on customer demand. More than ever, it’s easy to “Buy American.”
    Did you know that waves of "Buy American" sentiments have rolled through our culture for more than a century? The image above, for example, was part of a 1917 American Liberty Loan campaign—asking immigrants to show their love of this country by investing in our future.
    Are you considering a new-car purchase? If so, how does all of this play into your decision making? Does “Buying American” motivate you?
    Even if you’re not in the market for a new car, what’s your wager on the future of Detroit automakers—now that Toyota has stumbled?

    PLEASE, CLICK TO ADD A COMMENT before you go.