Fresh Thinking on Health Insurance

Governor Charlie Crist (R-Florida) has not only come up with a new way to provide health insurance coverage for his state's uninsured, but has put his ideas into legislation that will allow low cost alternatives to those who might otherwise be unable to afford traditional plans. The legislation, As explained in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial,will allow the sale of no-frills policies, which allow consumers to purchase basic coverage for as little as $150 per month.

One of the root causes of the high price of health insurance is the requirements passed by many states that certain coverages be included in all policies. Such coverage includes such treatments as Chiropractics, Acupuncture, Podiatry and infertility treatments. Ironically, these mandates often stem more from the efforts of special interest lobbying groups rather than consumer demand. Consumers are forced to buy the whole package or go without insurance, often due to the cost.

This may not be a perfect solution, but for many, no frills coverage would be much better than no coverage at all. And, it keeps the government out of the health care business.

Re-Viewing Appeasement

Let’s re-View the posting of May 18th, and give its topic a partial onion peel so as to better focus on the questions raised by Barack Obama’s recent muddled utterances regarding foreign policy.

In the Democratic debate of July 23, 2007, Obama responded to an audience member’s question:

“Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?”

Obama replied:

“I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.”

When President Bush recently made his comments in a speech in Israel warning about the dangers of following a diplomatic policy of appeasement, Obama quickly took umbrage, inferring that this was a criticism of his proposals for foreign policy. Since Bush hadn’t mentioned any names, Obama’s reaction is even more telling.

That the State Department’s headquarters is referred to as Foggy Bottom is not without reason. Modern diplomacy is an arcane art form that has evolved over the centuries and its practice, especially in dealing with hostile states, is complex. Applying subtle pressures and offering enticements to countries in an effort to have them move away from untenable policy positions is a multifaceted and orchestrated effort. While it is not wise to cut off communications entirely with unfriendly countries, such communications are usually relegated to indirect diplomatic channels. Events of state, such as a presidential visit, are typically reserved for those countries with a demonstrated effort of cooperation and friendship with the United States. A presidential visit to a country that has consistently adhered to hostile and aggressive policies seems to be a counter-intuitive strategy, at best.

Democrats are quick to point to President Nixon’s famous visit to China and Ronald Reagan’s meetings with the Soviet leadership as examples of presidential diplomacy initiatives with ostensible enemies. But these historic steps were made possible only after extensive diplomatic groundwork cast them in an appropriate diplomatic framework.

Also troubling are Obama’s inconsistencies in evaluating the potential threat from countries like Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela. Last week in Oregon, he dismissed the threats posed by these countries. The next day, however, he recanted, at least with respect to Iran which he then admitted posed a significant threat to its region and American interests. There is talk of him climbing a learning curve on foreign affairs, but a grounding in the basics of international affairs seems a prerequisite for a presidential candidate.

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Karl Rove summed up this issue as follows:

“On Wednesday, Mr. Obama said in Florida that in a meeting with the Iranians he’d make it clear that their behavior is unacceptable. That message has been delivered clearly by Republican and Democratic administrations in public and private diplomacy over the past sixteen years. Is he so naive to think he has a unique ability to make this even clearer?

If Mr. Obama believes he can change the behavior of these nations by meeting without preconditions , he owes it to the voters to explain why unconditional, unilateral meetings with Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmedinejad or North Koreas Kim Jong II will not deeply unsettle our allies.

If Mr. Obama fails to do so, voters may come to believe that he is asking them to accept he has a “Secret Plan” and that he is hopelessly out of his depth on national security.”

What seems eerily missing from Obama’s position statements is an understanding of the mechanics of modern diplomacy. His hands-on approach may well have been effective in dealing with recalcitrant factions in Chicago politics, where squabblers were convinced by the strength of Obama's arguments to reason out their differences. But whether the tactics used to organize the South side will work in Tehran, is open to serious question. Recognizing, rightly, that his lack of experience hurts his candidacy, he has asked voters to look, instead, to the quality of his judgment. Unfortunately, the heads of state on which he plans to call may be much less impressed with his eloquence and charisma than are the Democratic voters.

Conservatism, Alive and Well

From the Wall Street Journal's, Notable & Quotable
May 20, 2008; (Page A23)

Fred Thompson, writing at Townhall.com:

Conservatism is alive and well in America; don't let anyone tell you differently. And by conservatism, I don't mean the warmed-over "raise your hand if you believe . . ." kind of conservatism we see blooming every election cycle. No, I'm speaking of the conservatism grounded in principles based upon enduring truths: an understanding of the importance of human nature in the affairs of individuals and nations. Respect for the lessons of history, the importance of faith and tradition. The understanding that while man is prone to err, he is capable of great things when not subjugated by a too-powerful government.

Here, in the beginning phase of the presidential election, it is a good time for a gut check on just where we stand on some basic issues. To date, the democrats have been firing primarily on each other. And even given Mrs. Clinton's efforts at portraying herself as a moderate, there are fortunately, enough of us around with clear memories that know her for for what she is, and moderate doesn't cut it, in spite of her strategy of putting on a new persona as easily as changing pantsuits. If Barack continues to firm his grasp on the Democratic nomination, at least there will be no confusion as to his liberal positions.

As the campaign heats up, be prepared for debates on specific proposals. Health care, and its massive costs, is certain to re-surface. It is understandable that some people would be willing to have the federal government solve many of their problems, conveniently ignoring the corresponding loss of personal freedom. Before the tide of rhetoric starts to rise, revisit the points made, above, by Fred Thompson.

An Appeasing Candidate

As Barack Obama continues his slog to victory as the ostensible Democratic presidential nominee, we begin to see the shape of the main event emerge from the murk of the protracted Democratic primary. Many have looked at the tally of delegates and the possible outcomes of the remaining few primaries and have concluded. logically, that absent an improbable landslide move on the part of the remaining uncommitted super delegates, Obama can’t lose. With a giant caveat in deference to the parallel reality that reigns in a place called Planet Clinton, The View is ready to subscribe to this outcome with a never-say-never admonition to Obama to watch his six. This is based upon the opinion that the one issue that keeps Hillary from exiting stage left is that of money. After all, isn’t it always about money when we the focus is on the Clintons. After a combined lifetime of “public service”, the Clintons have realized that the free housing and plane rides all comes to an end and there is after all a need for personal wealth. Having achieved a measure of that goal, they are both deathly afraid that the spigot may finally be turned to the off position. To put it another way, Hillary ain’t going no where until she can recapture the $11.5 million that the campaign owes her and Bill. The good news is that this problem can presumably be solved without them moving back into the Whitehouse.

With this background, Barack fired on of the first round in the presidential election this week. As it turns out, however, the volley had the indirect trajectory of a three-cushion pool shot. When President Bush , in a speech to the Israeli Knesset, warned against the strategy of appeasement in dealing with radical and terrorist regimes, Obama quickly framed the remarks as criticism of his nebulous foreign policy, arguing that his strategy of direct talks with despots can achieve effective results, in spite of the extreme positions such despots might espouse. Then, in an attempt to square the circle, he puts forth the weak argument that John McCain’s first term would be, in essence, Bush’s third. But before we take the bait and descend into a referendum on the Bush presidency, let’s look at the underlying issue: the characterization of each candidate’s foreign policy.

It is impossible to focus on a discussion of foreign policy without acknowledging the divisiveness of the ongoing Iraq war. We, as a country, have paid an enormous price for this operation which, only recently, seems to have achieved military success. But the political issues surrounding the war, are numerous and do not lend themselves to simple analysis. The core issue here is the manner in which the USA should deal with rogue and radical regimes that have the publicly-stated goal of causing fatal harm to America and its allies, not to mention mankind in general. And these are not idle threats. The terror of the events of 9/11 is but one of the dubious achievements of these purveyors of hate. We as a country have to decide the optimum mix of collegial and big-stick toughness. Democrats are famously known for their preference for diplomatic negotiations, even to the extent of establishing parallel diplomatic contacts, sometimes in direct conflict with the State Department’s policies. Exhibit one is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who apparently dreams of reincarnation as Condoleza Rice. But in dealing with a those states advocating near criminal programs of oppression and violence, it is often our strength, and our willingness to employ it in a just cause, that produces the desired results.

John McCain is his own man and before the election is over, we will know much more about his views on government. But be prepared. Democrats will do their best to tie him to the policies of the Bush administration, especially those which have proven unpopular. It is always easy to pick apart the efforts of those actively dealing with real world challenges, especially for those gadflies who have never had to function in an executive capacity. If the Democrats have, in fact, got their act together, let the games begin and let’s hear from each of the candidates about their vision of the future rather than tired criticisms of the past records of those not even in the race.

The Morning After

The results are in, at least unofficially, but based on the preliminary numbers, there are not a lot of mysteries yet to be revealed. Pending the issuance of final numbers by the Town Clerk's office, the unofficial totals from yesterday's Plymouth Town election are posted on Wicked Plymouth

Approximately 25% of Plymouth's registered voters turned out yesterday to cast ballots in an election that had few competitive contests and, apparently, few compelling issues. While it is always chancy to extrapolate town-wide trends from a light voter turnout, there is still much that can be learned from these results.

The Selectman's race, one of only two contested offices on the ballot saw John T. Mahoney garner almost fifty percent more votes than did the two incumbents in an apparent voter statement against the status quo. Dicky Quintal, supporter of the popular Plymouth Rock Studio proposal edged out Jean Loewenberg by less than 500 votes for a narrow re-election. Ms. Loewenberg was a majority member of the Charter Commission which proposed a new charter which was thoroughly rejected by the voters.

William Wennerberg won a five-year term on the Planning Board, beating Board Alternate, Tim Grandy. It is interesting to note that while a total of 9,500 voters cast votes for the Charter Question, only 8,100 votes were cast in the Planning Board race. While there may be a bit of confusion among voters as to just what it is that the Planning Board does, it seems strange that approximately 1,400 voters, who had actually shown up at the polls, would not have cast a vote in one of only two competitive contests.

The proposed new Town Charter was overwhelmingly rejected by almost a two to one margin. In spite of a long-held belief by many Plymoutheans that the current form of Town government badly needs to be revised, the proposed plan, broadly criticized as being too complicated and lacking a clear chain of command, had garnered little pre-election support. It also appears that the the anti-charter sentiment was so pronounced as to seep over into the Selectman's race, thereby costing Jean Loewnberg re-election.

Garnering almost ninety percent of votes cast, the non-binding referendum on the proposed Plymouth Rock Studio was a big winner. Let's just hope that the various approval steps are carefully thought out and that the Town doesn't give away a valuable resource while in the throes of visions of movie stars sipping Margaritas at Sam Diegos.

One might argue, as the View has done, that the non-binding question on the Iraq war didn't belong on the municipal ballot and that it was really just a thinly-veiled call for pre-empting the Executive Branch's powers by cutting off the funding for the war, thereby undermining the efforts of our troops in the field. That having been said, many people have never really understood the wars rationale and are simply tired of it. Given a quick and non-binding chance to vent their frustrations, the results are sadly understandable.

Plymoutheans, Do Your Duty, II

The Plymouth Town election is only a week away. Next Saturday, May 10th, Plymoutheans will go to the polls to exercise one of their their basic rights. Or as the lawn signs put it, perform "Every Residents Duty."

With the goal of encouraging a better informed voter turnout, the View is providing here, without editorial comment, some basic background information that might allow the voters to give some thought to the ballot issues in advance. This information should be especially helpful to voters new to Plymouth and the vagaries of Town government.

Plymouth is divided into 14 voting precincts. If you are unsure what precinct you live in, or where the polls are located for your precinct, call the Town Clerk's Office at 508-747-1620, X169.

The Board of Selectmen consists of five members elected to three-year overlapping terms and is the Town's chief executive body. This year, three candidates are running for two seats:

Incumbent Richard "Dicky" Quintal has served on the Board for eight years, most recently as chairman. A lifelong Plymouth resident, Quintal runs Quintal Brothers, a Plymouth-based produce company. He also chairs the 1000 Acres Citizens Advisory Committee and is a strong backer of developing a movie studio in South Plymouth (see Question 3, below).

Incumbent Jean Loewenberg has served on the Board for three years, most recently as Vice Chairman. She formerly served on the Zoning Board of Appeals and is a majority member of the Charter Commission that is proposing a new Town Charter (See Question 1, below). She is general counsel for a Boston investment management firm.

John T. Mahoney is making his second run at a Selectman's seat. He serves on the Town's Finance and Advisory Committee as well as the Open Space Committee. Mr. Mahoney has a B.S. Degree in Business from Bridgewater State College and is a member of Local 4, Boston, International Union of Elevator Constructors.

School Committee: two incumbents are running unopposed for two three-year terms: Chair, Linda McAlduff and Vice Chair, John White.

Planning Board: William Wennerberg and Timothy Grandy are running for one five-year term. Grandy is currently a Planning Board alternate. Board member Loring Tripp is not seeking re-election.

Redevelopment Authority: Chester Bagni is running unopposed for three-year term.

Town Meeting Members: Three members from each precinct for three-year terms, plus vacancies in Precincts 7,9, 10 and 13 for partial terms.

For additional information about the candidates including candidate statements, see the ARTICLE in the Old Colony Memorial


The ballot also contains three questions, which are reprinted below from the Local Election Warrant:

QUESTION 1

Shall this town approve the charter revision recommended by the charter commission summarized below?

Summary

This question is being presented pursuant to Chapter 43B of the Massachusetts General Laws, known as the Home Rule Procedures act, which requires that the Charter proposed by the elected Plymouth Charter Commission as set forth in the Commission's Final report be presented for approval to the registered voters of the Town. The proposed charter includes a popularly elected Mayor responsible for the operational aspects of government; a five member Executive Board,including the Mayor, a Representative Assembly comprised of three members from each precinct which shall meet at least four times per year; a popularly elected President of the Representative Assembly with significant authority; standing committees of the Representative Assembly including Finance, Rules, Bylaws and Administration; Zoning and Planning;economic Development and Tourism; and education and Culture and Open Space; a Strategic Planning Board to advise the representative Assembly on strategic goal setting, long-range planning and policy making; a popularly-elected Planning Board with powers not within the scope of Strategic Planning Board, and a revised recall procedure.


A YES VOTE will adopt the Charter proposed by the elected Charter Commission thereby establishing a form of government that includes a Mayor heading the executive branch, a smaller legislative branch known as the representative assembly, and a long range planning group known as the Strategic Planning Board.

A NO VOTE will make no change to the current form of government.

QUESTION 2

This Question is Non-Binding


Whereas, Congress has the sole responsibility to allocate funds and, Whereas Congress is the check to the Executive branch of government which is prosecuting the illegal occupation of Iraq, and Whereas a majority of American citizens call for an end to thee war in Iraq, and; Whereas $480 billion of taxpayer money has already been spent on this war without an end in sight, depriving us of necessary funds for education, housing health care, support for returning veterans, reparations to the people of Iraq, and for other vital human needs,We therefore call upon our Congressional representatives to vote only for funding a safe and rapid withdrawal of all US troops fro Iraq.

Summary

This non-binding question asks voters to advise their elected federal representatives to vote only for funding for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

A YES VOTE will indicate to the Town's elected federal representatives that the voters of the Town wish such representatives to vote only for funding for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

A NO VOTE will take no position regarding funding for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

QUESTION 3

This question is non-binding

Shall the voters of Plymouth recommend to the Board of Selectmen and Plymouth Town Meeting Representatives that they support the location of the proposed Plymouth Rock Studios on a portion of town-owned land at the intersection of Bourne Road and Route 25 in south Plymouth, also known as the 1,000 acres.

SUMMARY

This non-binding question is a result of the proposals by Plymouth Rock Studios to develop movie production studios on approximately 400 acres of the so-called "1,000 acres" parcel of land in South Plymouth. For this project to move forward, several votes of Town Meeting would be required, including zoning change, land conveyance, and tax incentive financing plan. This question asks voters if they want to make a recommendation to the elected officials of the Town that shows support for this specific location for this project.

A YES VOTE will show support for the development of the 1,000 Acres site for the Plymouth Rock Studios.

A NO VOTE will take no position on the Development of the 1,000 Acres site for the Plymouth Rock Studios.

The polls will be open from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM. This should give everyone plenty of time to "Do their duty."