What Does the Mid-Term Election Mean?

It never fails. After every election the pundits sit around wringing their hands agonizing over the results and what it all means. In part, it is because they need something to talk about. In part, their livelihood depends on adding their input.

It also always happens that the winners try to read as much as possible into the election results. They want to convince themselves and the public at large that they have a mandate to push their agenda. The losers try to downplay the outcome and find as little reason to change direction as they can. Wherever possible the losers will blame other factors rather than admit a repudiation of their policies.

It falls to the electorate at large to separate the truth from the spin. Sadly, the electorate is generally so fed up with campaigning they don't want to think about it any more. They would much rather move on to their holiday shopping.

What do I think the Republican gains and Democrat loses in the most recent election means? Several things:

• Obviously, it will be harder for Democrats to push reform and investment in our nation's future. It will require substantially greater effort to find common ground with the Republicans for anything to be accomplished legislatively. Progress will have to take smaller steps.
• Since the number of political moderates in office is being reduced, compromise will be more difficult than before. Immigration policy reform is probably dead.
• The United States was not exempted from the current global phenomenon. The general result of this election was predictable even a year ago as one by one western democracies suffered loses for whichever group was in power. The global economic recession took a toll on the leadership in power in country after country no matter who was in charge when the downturn began.
• The predictability of this outcome vindicates the significant push the Obama administration made for major reform in the most difficult areas in the first few months of the term. The best (perhaps only) window of opportunity was in the first two years.

As a final comment on the predictability of the election outcome, I actually had the majority of this blog entry written in my head months ago. I even considered posting it well ahead of election day. But, I held out for the chance that I could be wrong.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
November 7, 2010

Health Care Battle Not Over

The battle for health care reform is not over -- far from it. Like many others in this country, I feel the current bill before the House of Representatives does not go far enough in reforming our health care system. At the top of my list of dissatisfactions is the fact that some of its most important provisions don't even take effect before 2014. Even so, I think it helps to draw an analogy from the sport of mountain climbing.

If ever there was a task that could be compared with scaling a monstrous mountain, health care reform has got to be that task. Even expert climbers scale difficult mountains in stages. At certain points along they way, they may even drive a piton into the side of the mountain to fasten a safety rope to protect themselves from falling back below that point. In recent years, there has been an emphasis on "clean climbing" which uses no pitons, but even the clean climbing devotees acknowledge that the most difficult mountains still require piton use.

Passing the current health care reform bill represents driving a piton into the health care reform mountain. It is not the summit, but it preserves the progress to this point. There is still much more to be done, but it is dangerous to continue without a safety rope. Clearly, we have come as far as we dare without locking in the progress to this point. The current health care reform legislation needs to pass.

That's Wade's two cents.


Wade Houston
March 20, 2010

The Furor Over a Government Run Public Health Insurance Option

Health care reform is being pushed like never before. Nearly all sectors of our society are clamoring for it. The medical profession wants it. The insurance industry wants it. The business community as a whole wants it. The President wants it. Most important of all, I want it.

Even the people who have health insurance coverage are seeing their costs are higher than they would be otherwise if it were not for the burden of all the uninsured individuals who drive up prices for everyone else. Surely, this is the year health care reform will be passed.

Not so fast! Lots of people want something done, but they don't all agree on what is to be done. Most agree that the ideal would be some form of health care coverage for everyone. The one's who don't support this are the people who would rather exclude anyone who might get in line for medical services ahead of them if they have the opportunity. Instead of admitting their selfishness, they find more socially acceptable reasons to oppose the idea.

A major focus of opposition for many of these people seems to be around a government provided public health insurance option. There are several points they make which on the surface seem reasonable.

* They say a government venture into health insurance would be an unfair competitor to the private insurance industry. The very size of the government insurance would put that program in a position to command price concessions for health care services that private industry could not rival.

* They say the government is attrociously inefficient and a bureaucratic nightmare. They point to the typically long lines of people applying for drivers licenses or car registrations at the Department of Motor Vehicles in most states.

* Some people are simply philosophically opposed to anything that expands the role of government. They are fond of saying that a government big enough to give you whatever you want is also capable of taking everything you've got.

As I said, on the surface, many of these arguments seem reasonable. But look more closely.

First, the government's running of mail and package delivery service in the form of the postal service did not stop other companies like Federal Express, United Parcel Service and other couriers from getting a foothold and thriving. What was once a virtual monopoly in the hands of government lost considerable marketshare to private industry. It could certainly be argued that those private companies are actually all the better for having to compete against the government.

Second, comparing a possible government run public health insurance program to most states' Department of Motor Vehicles is a false analogy. Every vehicle owner or driver is required to go through their department of motor vehicles and only there to obtain appropriate licenses and registrations. There is no private option. When it comes to health insurers, there are lots of options. The DMV analogy resonates with a lot of people because we all hate those long waits. But it is a smokescreen because it does not really apply.

Third, people who embrace the philosophy that the government that governs least governs best are not thinking things through. One example: only government can really look after the nations highway system. It would be a sad state of affairs if it did not. We all benefit because government does take care of our roads. Yet the government does not tell us where to drive or ration how much we can drive. We are at liberty to traverse any open public road available. It is still a personal choice. There are other examples that come to mind, but I won't mention them here.

I am not married to the idea of a government administered health insurance program. If the objectives of having such a program can be fully met in some other reasonsable way, I am fine with that. But that other way needs to be put on the table and discussed. Meanwhile, lets steer clear of scare tactics and false analogies to demonize the public option.

Unfortunately, it seems most Republicans and some Democrats are more interested in opposing any health care reform that contains a government administered health insurance program instead of offering a viable alternative. That is dead end thinking.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
June 19, 2009

Stimulating Lies

I support a healthy debate. I believe in honest dialogue. But Republicans in the United States Senate and House are in many cases telling outright lies about the stimulus bill. Some keep repeating those falsehoods over and over with ever louder voices as though doing so would turn a lie into the truth. Chief among the lies they seem to be telling is that this bill will not keep or create jobs. Why?

I think they know that if you repeat a lie often enough some people begin to believe it. Since the American people gave control of both the legislative and executive branches of our government to the Democrats, the Republicans are shouting all the louder to make up for what they lack in numbers. They seem to be counting on the recession lasting well into 2010 regardless of what the government does. In that case, they expect the fickle voter will turn against those in power and reward the vocal opposition at the polls.

On the surface, this seems to be quite a gamble. If the stimulus should have a significant positive impact on the economy by mid 2010, the Republicans will have been definitively on record as having been on the wrong side of the issue. However, the American people are notoriously forgiving when everything turns out alright in the end. Perhaps that is what the GOP is counting on. I am cynical enough to believe they put their collective heads together and decided they have nothing to gain from bipartisanship. Partisan bickering may not cost them much in the end and holds the possibility of greater political reward.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
February 13, 2009

Why I Chose Not to Vote Early

The 2008 election is now over (except for a few runoffs). My state had one of the longest early voting periods in the nation. There was a lot of encouragement to vote early. I thought about it, but I held out. I did not vote until the final election day, November 4th.

Why did I wait? Well, it was not because of any indecision on my part. I knew I was going to vote for the candidates who came closest to my own position on health care. I knew those were all Democrats. I knew how I was going to vote a few months before the election. So indecision had nothing to do with my delay.

No, my issue was that I had little confidence in the early voting system in my state. Historically, there have been many instances of problems with counting absentee ballots. I was not convinced those difficulties had been resolved. Furthermore, for the non-absentee touch screen early voting, there was no paper trail. I wanted my vote to count and felt safest placing it in the mainstream of votes on election day. There was still no paper trail, but I had greater confidence the system would work smoothly that day. I was amused to see that the presidential candidates themselves waited until that final day to cast their own votes.

Since I had made a donation to Barack Obama's political campaign, I was on their e-mailing list. I kept getting one message after another encouraging me to vote early and to get others to vote early as well. I was considering putting my concerns aside and doing exactly that when the news reports started coming in of long long lines at the early polling places. Some in my state had to wait as long as seven hours to cast their votes.

At first I thought it was just temporary. After a few days of people voting early surely the numbers would taper off to a trickle with maybe a slight rise on the last early voting day. I was wrong! It became something of a feedback loop. The reports of such long lines made some people fear they needed to go ahead and vote lest they find the lines impossibly long on election day. So more people voted early making the lines still longer.

I pondered requesting an absentee ballot which could be mailed in but really hesitated because of the history of these ballots. Sure enough, in a few days it was in the news that faulty absentee ballots had been mailed out. The problem with these ballots was that the ovals were the wrong size and shape for the optical scanners to read. In Hamlet's words, "Oh, my prophetic soul!" New ballots were mailed out, but all those that had been marked and already returned were going to have to be manually transcribed onto new ballots.

(Here we are days after the close of the election and my state, Georgia, is still counting absentee ballots. The outcome of a U.S. Senate race is hanging in the balance. Perhaps by Tuesday the Georgia Secretary of State will be able to certify the election results.)

There continued to be issues with voting machines not working properly. Some of the voting machines were not properly calibrated and were registering votes for the wrong candidates. There were computer voter verification delays, etc. until the early election period finally ended. My hope was that all the kinks in the system got worked out. Maybe with all the normal polling places open on the regular election day there would be enough facilities in operation that the wait to vote would not be hours upon hours. I took that gamble.

I considered getting up early so I could be at the polls and in line by 6 a.m. Ultimately, I decided against that. I understand that others in my precinct who did go early had a wait of about an hour and a half. A local church serves as the polling place for my precinct and the poll workers had people queue through the pews in the sanctuary. People who waited until just before the polls closed also had to wait for a while.

I went to vote just before noon. If it had not been for the signs pointing where to vote, I would have thought the polling place had been moved. I experienced absolutely no wait to get my voting machine key card. After that, I actually spent more time trying to get through all the elections and issues on the ballot than I did waiting for an available machine.

I thanked the poll workers who volunteer their time and energies to make the operation work. I did not realize until recently that most of that work was voluntary. I am grateful to all those who voted early. They got their votes out of the way so my own voting experience went much more smoothly. (Gratitude feels so much better than any sort of guilt for the painlessness of my own voting experience.)

More needs to be done to improve the integrity of the balloting process in this country. We must have confidence in the way the will of the people is tabulated to believe that we really have "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

We also need to do more to make voting less burdensome. My parents went to vote on one of the early days, but the line they encountered was about three hours long. With their health issues, that was not going to work. So, they went home.

Still, I am proud of our elections in this country. I am proud to be an American.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
November 8, 2008

Tricks or Treats for Voters

The conclusion of this election season is just days away, and the political cynic in me is fully engaged. The closer we are to having it all be over, the more the negative campaigns of misleading statements and half truths fly. This seems to be true for all levels of office being sought. From the election of the next county sheriff all the way up to the President of the United States, opponents are pulling each other's statements and situations out of context to use as billy clubs.

Unfortunately, the public is eating it up. The media senses that and provides more of what the public seems to want. Many people complain about the negativity but can't resist listening for the latest mud to reinforce their beliefs about the person they have decided not to vote for. At this stage of the race, getting a new understanding of the issues in depth has gone out the window.

There is an observable devolution in political campaigns. Typically they start with elevated discussions of goals and concepts. There will be a lot of civil discussions involving complex exchanges of ideas. Unfortunately, only the intellectual elite give them much notice. Over time, the complex ideas give way to simplifications. Then the simplifications give way to nice sound bites. At each stage the number of voters paying attention grows. By this point, the point of drastic over simplification, most of the voters will have made up their minds.

To go after the remaining voters, the campaign shifts from attracting voters to oneself to driving them away from one's opponent. This is the nasty Halloween part of the campaign. Unfortunately, this is the part the late deciders tune in for. The members of the electorate whose opinions are primarily shaped by negative ads are the same people who turn down Charlie Rose to tune into Jerry Springer. But, in a close election, their votes are vital.

While the candidates themselves are not blameless, the fault for all the mudslinging is not entirely theirs. They are doing what they must do to win. Even the most idealistic candidate can do nothing if not elected. If they have to crawl down into the mud in order to win, it's because that is where the votes they need reside. A mudslinging campaign is as much a reflection of the voters as it is of the ones running for election.

As the voters go looking for goodies, they should not be surprised to run into a few skeletons along the way. That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
October 31, 2008

Telecommuting Has Pros and Cons

In this age of high transportation costs and increasing ease of telecommuting, more and more of us have taken to working from home. Working from home certainly has its perks. You don't have to fight the traffic. There is no time wasted on commuting, so more of your off time is really yours. You don't have to spend extra time preening for people at the office (unless you are doing a lot of work with a web cam). You can essentially go straight from your bedroom to your desk and never change from your pajamas.

Some people see telecommuting as the ideal solution for their child care issues. However, many employers are not so sure. Children, especially young children, frequently cannot appreciate the need to leave mommy or daddy alone to work. The constant interruptions prevent the type of sustained concentration many jobs require. On the other hand, this type of arrangement may be preferred by employers of nursing mothers.

During an interview, one friend of mine was asked by her future employer if she might be tempted to do housework while she should be focused on her job. Her reply was classic. "I've never been tempted by housework before. Why should doing my job from home make any difference?" They had a good laugh, and she was hired. But it does make an important point. There is a potential for distractions unique to a home environment.

If lots of face to face interaction with co-workers is vital for the performance of your job, then working from home is probably not for you. If you derive your energy and sense of satisfaction from the routine give and take between yourself and others on your work team, then working exclusively from home will leave you unfulfilled. Then again, if you hate your co-workers, working in isolation could improve your performance.

Some people need to get out of the house to experience a sense of separation between their professional lives and their personal lives. For them, working from home would be too much of an intrusion of one into the other. Many people complain that since they started working from home, they never seem to be able to get away from their jobs. They don't feel like their work day is done when they don't physically leave the workplace behind. One friend of mine addressed this problem by putting his office in his basement. When he went to the basement, he was "at work". His family came to understand and respect this arrangement. He stayed out of his basement office when he was done for the day.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston

Universal Health Care is a Win, Win

The falling value of the dollar should be dramatically boosting our exports. This should increase domestic employment. Believe it or not, we're seeing some of that. Otherwise, our unemployment numbers would be even higher than they are. A major reason we are not seeing a greater benefit is because the American labor market is not structured for international competition.

A big hindrance to American labor's competitiveness around the world is the tying of health care to employment. We expect employers to provide health insurance for the employees. This one item adds significantly to labor costs. If we did not participate in a global marketplace, we could continue this practice indefinitely. Or, if the rest of the world followed this same model we could continue this approach to health care with no adverse consequences to our competitiveness. But, that is not what the other industrialized nations of the world are doing.

Nearly all the other major industrialized nations have some sort of government provided health care which leaves private businesses completely out of the picture. That means those businesses have no health care expenses associated with their labor costs. In comparison with American labor market, it is as if those foreign businesses were having a portion of their labor costs subsidized by their governments. That is a significant competitive advantage. It is so significant, in fact, that if it were a more direct subsidy, the United States would be suing those countries in the World Trade Court for unfair practices.

It would be extremely arrogant to expect the rest of the world to change to our system of health care. They happen to like their way. Many U.S. companies that have shifted parts of their operations abroad like their way also. Being able to operate without the costs of health care has been a driving factor in the export of jobs.

American labor can hardly be expected to suddenly give up employer provided health care with nothing to replace it. That would be a catastrophe. We can't fault American businesses for wanting to keep expenses down, either. Without some remedy, the steady export of jobs abroad will likely continue.

There have been a lot of proposals circulated to address the problem of Americans who either have no health care insurance or are woefully under insured. A significant number of these would place the burden for this insurance on the backs of the employers. In terms of world trade, this is exactly the opposite of what needs to be done.

To improve their global competitiveness, our businesses need for us to adopt a government provided system of universal health care. There are ways this can be done without putting the insurance companies out of business. In fact, depending upon how such a program is structured, it could even increase their business. This would be a win for businesses because their domestic costs would go down. This would be a win for labor because it would be easier for companies to add more jobs. That is why both business and labor should be leading the crusade for universal health care.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
July 9, 2008

Wake Up to the Abundance of Energy

Energy finally seems to be getting the attention it deserves. People are recognizing the rising demand around our planet, and many are talking about energy shortages as developing nations start utilizing more energy themselves. But the reality is that we are surrounded by an abundance of energy. The earth is truly blessed.

The mindset of energy shortage comes from a tunnel vision focus on fossil fuels. That limited focus is drying up supplies and poisoning our planet. What is needed instead is for developers to take off their blinders and wake up to the enormous supply of untapped energy that surrounds us. I am not talking metaphysics here. I am talking about natural energy.

Here's one example. Long range forecasters are predicting some critical fresh water needs in the future that current delivery systems cannot accommodate. Many areas are already feeling the strain. Obviously, more needs to be done with water reclamation. But additionally, many are calling for much more to be done with the desalination of seawater. A major obstacle to that has been the high energy demand of such operations. Imagine, though, a desalination plant that harnesses the local power of the tides, the wind, and the waves to generate the electricity required to operate and pump the water. The output of the plant might be somewhat variable, but it would take no energy from the grid. Instead, the facility takes the energy from its environment.

We need to get away from the all or nothing approach to supplying our electrical energy needs. There is an enormous amount of energy lost in transmission from a central location. Envision, instead, a community in which every building has roof shingles that not only perform the usual protective functions but also convert sunlight into electricity for use in that building. In most locations, this would not be enough to substitute for the electrical grid, but it could certainly supplement. If the building is making use of a subterranean heating and cooling system, the power to provide the air circulation could all be generated on site. (Google "subterranean heating and cooling" for more information.)

This sort of decentralization of power supply can make an enormous difference in parts of the developing world where the infrastructure for power delivery has not been put into place. In many respects, it is similar to the way in which cell phone service has reached many areas were there are still no telephone land lines. These countries will be able to modernize more quickly and with less investment in infrastructure with this type of technology. As a bonus, it will have less negative impact on the environment.

What we need now and in the future is more creative energy. Sometimes, we need new technologies. Sometimes we just need new applications of very old technologies. Either way, we'll be drawing upon the abundance of energy that already surrounds us.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
July 3, 2008

Best Way for Hillary Clinton to Help Barack Obama

The last of the 2008 presidential primaries are behind us. It is clear that Barack Obama is going to be the Democrat nominee. All of his opponents have endorsed him. That includes his most enduring competitor, Hillary Clinton.

Senator Clinton has promised to do everything she can to support the election of Barack Obama. She is committed to seeing a Democrat elected to the White House. That invites the question, "How can Hillary Clinton's services be put to the best use?"

Certainly, Senator Clinton can go a long way to persuade those who supported her in the nomination process that their best next option is to support the election of Barack Obama. This is probably the single most important task for Hillary Clinton. Her consistent enthusiastic message has to be that Barack Obama must become the next President of the United States.

But, what about outside her base of support? Hillary Clinton comes with baggage. There are some people in this country who were determined to vote for anyone who was running against her. Of course, the majority of those aren't going to vote for Senator Obama, either, but some will. Obama needs to use Hillary Clinton's support to the best advantage without stirring up energy for the opposition. That is the challenge.

My recommendation would be that Senator Clinton hit the campaign trail stumping for other Democrats running for office. At every stop she can encourage people to support Barack Obama for President by voting for him and also sending to Washington people who will support his policies. This would need to be done carefully to see that she only appears with candidates in areas where her support is a net benefit, but it could help the Democrats enormously.

This approach is a win for Hillary Clinton as well. Much of politics is based on trading favors. By campaigning for other Democrats seeking office, Clinton builds political capital she can use to push policies in the Senate later.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
July 2, 2008

Choose Your Pain Wisely

We are in an economic slowdown at the same time we're experiencing rising prices of essentials such as food and transportation. Of course, non-essentials are going up, too. But it's easier to adjust to those price increases by cutting back.

As we tighten our belts and adjust to making what we have left go further, it is natural to expect our government agencies to do the same. It is politically popular to talk about "eliminating waste and unnecessary spending." Unfortunately, in the real world those cuts rarely get applied to extravagant toilets, etc. Instead they translate into job losses and reduction of services to the public.

When we insist our government agencies reduce spending, we don't really want people to lose their jobs. We just want lower taxes. Sadly, we cannot eat our cake and have it still.

When any organization or agency cuts jobs, there are going to be more people competing for the jobs that remain. Unemployment rises. Even if you believe your job is secure, the prevailing job market has a dampening effect on wages. This can lead to a downward economic spiral as people cut back on spending to adjust.

In the United States the federal government is the largest single employer. When you add to those federal jobs all the jobs of the various states and municipalities, you can see that governmental cuts have a big impact on overall unemployment rates. Those taxes you pay may hurt, but lower wages and even unemployment hurt still more. Keep that in mind the next time you look at your paycheck stub.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
June 27, 2008

California Gay Marriage Ruling Energizes GOP

This week, California's supreme court struck down the state's law defining marriage as being exclusively between persons of differing genders. Gay rights activists cheered the state constitutional ruling. Ellen DeGeneres lost little time in announcing her upcoming nuptials. Yes, there has been dancing in the streets.

However, some conservative Republicans are almost as gleeful. They see this as a clear opportunity to rally their electoral base to get them to the polls in November. They plan to hold the specter of same gender couples being able to marry, adopt children, and file joint tax returns up as a nightmarish abomination that only their votes for the Republican party candidates can prevent.

Right wing Republicans have been less than enthusiastic about their apparent presidential nominee, John McCain. There has been considerable concern that they might just stay home in November. As a consequence, the Republicans face a real possibility of substantial losses at all political levels. However, being able to stir up anti-gay feelings may be just the catalyst they need to get their people to the polls. The California ruling makes it more likely that will happen.

I don't think the GOP necessarily likes being the haven of bigots. But in an election year like this one, they'll take their votes wherever they can get them. When opportunity knocks, they don't care if it's the devil on the other side of the door.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
May 17, 2008

Why Not Lift the Gasoline Tax?

Senator John McCain and Senator Hillary Clinton have both been advocating for a summer suspension of the federal gas tax. Senator Barack Obama says the whole idea is a useless gimmick designed to buy votes. Who is right?

The idea that lifting the taxes on gasoline would reduce its price at the pump has appeal. Everyone would like to pay less. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee the consumer would ever see that savings.

* The gasoline retailers might simply use the savings to increase their profit margins leaving the prices where they are.

* The oil companies might increase their prices to the stations to increase their profit margins.

* If neither of those happened, a temporary drop in retail prices would probably spur increased usage of gasoline pushing up demand. This would result in more rising prices.

So, why even propose suspending the gasoline tax? Because it gives the appearance that the government is doing something about the situation. It gives voters the impression that their politicians care and are trying to help. Unfortunately, the most likely beneficiaries would be the oil companies.

It takes courage to tell voters what they don't want to hear. It takes integrity to admit an idea that sounds great on the surface simply won't work. I commend Senator Obama for doing just that. I also wonder what happened to John McCain's straight talk.

That's Wade's 2 cents.

Wade Houston
May 14, 2008

If I Had a Do Over

As I mentioned in my post regarding my super Tuesday vote, I cast my vote in the primary for Hillary Clinton. After a lot of internal debate, I made my decision based entirely upon her position on health care. All of my immediate family has some sort of health condition which makes individual health insurance either impossible to obtain or prohibitively expensive. So, this issue carries enormous weight with me personally.

Since that time, there have been new developments in the course of the campaign which have greatly increased my respect for Barack Obama. The exposure of the outlandish statements by Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, was a significant challenge. However, instead of immediately disowning Rev. Wright (as would have been politically expedient), Senator Obama acknowledged the differences between them but affirmed the relationship. This was admirable.

Later, when Jeremiah Wright made additional statements before the National Press Club in which he accused Senator Obama of saying whatever was needed for political reasons, Barack Obama adjusted to this new development with measured, but appropriate, distancing action. This demonstrates the ability to change course when necessary and to face reality. Both times I felt Barack Obama showed enormous strength and depth of character.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton told the blatantly untrue tale of running for cover to avoid sniper fire in Bosnia. She told this story not just once, but several times. It is difficult to believe that someone so normally in command of the facts would have made such a gaff unintentionally. This does not speak well of her character.

Senator John McCain suggested suspending the federal gasoline tax for the summer. Senator Clinton jumped on that bandwagon as well. Either they are both so ignorant they can't see what a useless gesture that would be, or they are political opportunists just looking to buy votes from a gullible electorate. To his credit, Senator Obama is calling this what it is, "a gimmick".

In spite of these developments, if we were having our primary today, instead of back in Feburary, I would still have let the health care issue decide my vote. Universal health care is that important to me. I would mark my ballot for Hillary Clinton, but I might have to hold my nose to do it.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
May 12, 2008

Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Wrong

While there has been a lot of furor over the comments of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, few of his statements slapped me across the face so much as an assertion he made before the National Press Club. When Wright suggested that an attack against him and his positions was really an attack against the black church, I was astounded.

First, I could not believe the arrogance of such a statement! Jeremiah Wright may be a very public person. He may be a prominent person. But he is NOT the summation of Christendom among blacks in America. The idea is outlandish! No one person can lay claim to that role.

Second, there is more than one predominantly black denomination in America. National Baptist churches, African Methodist Episcopal churches, Church of God in Christ churches, and numerous others all make up different Christian denominations with predominantly black memberships. So, there is not even one denomination that speaks for all Christians who are black in this country.

Third, the denomination of which Jeremiah Wright is a part is not even predominantly black. It is true that the congregation he pastored is made up almost entirely of black members. However, the United Church of Christ denomination at large has far more non-black members than black members.

Fourth, I would assert there is no Black Church (with a capital "C") in America or anywhere in the world. Yes, there are black churches (with a lowercase "c"). But, it is a precept of mainstream Christian theology that there is but one universal Church, and it encompasses people who are from all races and nationalities.

Fifth, while I know many Christians who are black, I don't personally know any who would join Jeremiah Wright in saying, "God damn America." Jeremiah Wright did not consult with them. Rev. Wright does not speak for them.

Rev. Wright is wrong! An attack against Jeremiah Wright and his positions is an attack against him individually. He should stop trying to drag other people into his battles.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
May 11, 2008

A Feeble Explanation

There is no good excuse for my not posting to this blog in the past several weeks. There is, however, a feeble explanation. This is it.

While I was trying to make a habit of posting to this blog at least once a week and commonly more often, I got derailed by a bout with the flu. It was one of those strains that the current vaccine did not prevent. The reason I can tell even though I did not get the vaccine, is that I managed to pass it along to someone else who had received the shot a couple of months before.

Anyway, I was in bed with the flu for about a week. Even though I went back to my job, I still felt really tired and coughed quite a bit. In fact, the coughing persisted for a number of weeks afterward. Others who had this influenza have told me similar stories. For the sake of my ability to function at work, I felt obliged to rest as much as possible when I came home. So, instead of blogging, I lay in bed. Instead of studying Spanish, I lay in bed. Instead of doing a number of household chores, I lay in bed.

Once all this laying around was no longer necessary, I had a lot of catching up to do with other things. Blogging took a seat in the far back of the bus. Now, regular posting is no longer a habit.

By the way, we really really really need universal health care.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
May 10, 2008

My Super Tuesday Decision

Super Tuesday has come and gone. My state, Georgia, was one of those participating. Up until the actual day of the vote, I did not know exactly which candidate I would vote for. Until the last few days, I was not even certain which primary I would vote in. Since Georgia is an open primary state, you can actually make that decision when you get to the verification table. Even though I expect to be voting with the Democrats this November, I entertained the possibility of voting in the Republican primary. However, ultimately, I did not.

Among Democrats, at one point I most favored Joe Biden. However, he dropped out weeks ago. After him, I preferred John Edwards. But Edwards suspended his campaigning just days ago. I could have still voted for either candidate since their names were actually on the ballot, but that would have been a waste. Instead, I decided between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama based on one and only one issue. That issue was health care. Of all the health care proposals advanced by any of the candidates, I favored John Edwards' plan the most. Of the remaining candidates, the one with the health care plan most like John Edwards was Hillary Clinton. In fact, at one point, Edwards accused Clinton of copying his own plan almost verbatim. So, when I got out of bed Tuesday morning, I decided to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Does that mean I am going to be upset if Barack Obama ends up winning the Democratic nomination? Hardly! However, it does point up my deep concern that Obama's health plan leaves out too many people and ultimately becomes actuarially unfeasible. Barack Obama is an intelligent man. Surely he will realize this problem if he ever really makes health care a truly high priority. I would sleep easier if Barack Obama adopted John Edwards' health plan also. That way, whoever gets the Democratic nomination would have a health plan I could believe in.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
February 6, 2008

Kennedy Endorses Obama - How Important Is It?

This week, the final State of the Union address by the current U.S. President, George W. Bush, was completely overshadowed by the announcement that Senator Edward Kennedy was endorsing Barack Obama in his quest for the Democratic nomination. It almost made the State of the Union address a non-event. Post speech commentators found it hard not to mention that Senators Kennedy and Obama were sitting together.

Both the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns made sure the public was aware of which members and how many of the Kennedy family were supporting each candidate. This was somewhat ironic in that the Obama camp has made much of the fact that two families, the Bush and Clinton families, have had such a dominate role in our political scene. We were directed to believe that another prominent political family was jumping on the "change" theme.

How important is an endorsement from a member of the Kennedy family? Apparently, it is quite important if only for the publicity. Frankly, I feel it is overrated. We need to remember that the Kennedy family is made up of individuals each of whom have varying talents and skills. Certainly none of them are worthy of an unquestioned following.

Barack Obama has been compared to John F. Kennedy. People who put forward this comparison are being quite selective in their memories. JFK has been almost deified in the minds of some. This is largely because of his tragic assassination. The Kennedy family has artfully kept this in the forefront of American consciousness along with his boldness in standing up to the Soviet Union during the Cuban missile crisis. Keeping these events prominent in the memories of that period has been advantageous in shoring up the Kennedy clan powerbase.

However, Barack Obama would be well advised to stay clear of pointing out too many similarities between himself and JFK. Many of today's voters have little memory of that time. An objective review of the history of the Kennedy administration would reveal that the Bay of Pigs fiasco came on John F. Kennedy's watch. It was JFK who put the U.S. military in the midst of the Vietnam conflict. If John F. Kennedy had lived, it would have been he, not Johnson, who suffered the eventual political fallout. Also, there is still much uncertainty regarding the personal moral conduct of both John and Robert Kennedy. Obama will do well to avoid inferring too many similarities.

The endorsement from Senator Edward Kennedy does mean something. But, it should not be because it is from a Kennedy. Rather, it should be because it comes from a man who has a long history of public service and championing the causes Barack Obama also supports. This is the United States of America. We have no royal families here. Let's keep this endorsement in its right perspective.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
February 1, 2008

John Edwards and Rudolph Giuliani Bow Out

The news is out, and so, apparently are both Giuliani and Edwards. Giuliani is a victim of a his own bad campaign strategy. Edwards is a victim of the historicity of running against a truly viable black candidate and a truly viable female candidate in the competition for the nation's highest office. Edward's exit virtually guarantees the Democrat party will have a significant historical first with the party nominee.

I am saddened by John Edwards exit. Of the remaining candidates, his was the proposed health care reform I believed in the most. Edwards voice on that issue was vital to setting the agenda for the Democrats.

Regarding Giuliani's exit, I am fairly ambivalent. I never bought into the idea that being the mayor of New York City and guiding that city through one great crises made him qualified for the day to day responsibilities of the President of the United States. So, I was not anticipating voting for him, anyway. However, as I have stated previously, I welcomed hearing from as many different voices as possible to have the most thorough airing of the issues.

John McCain stands the most to gain from Guiliani's withdrawal in the northeast Republican primaries. Whoever ends up with the Democratic nomination benefits from not running against Guiliani in the general election in those same states. Of course, there is no guarantee Guiliani won't end up in the second spot on the ticket.

Who benefits from John Edward's withdrawal is a more open question. In the storm of election politics, Edwards has been a voice of calm and reason. I am going to miss that voice.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
January 30, 2008

Dennis Kucinich Makes A Rare Bow To Pragmatism

Dennis Kucinich is withdrawing from the presidential contest. This is hardly surprising since his candidacy has been little more than a footnote to the overall picture. Nevertheless, his voice has been refreshing in its idealogical consistency. It has never been difficult to determine where Kucinich stood on the issues. His was a clear voice of liberal politics that was strong on idealism that rarely deferred to pragmatism.

The lack of pragmatism was undoubtedly one of the things that doomed the Kucinich candidacy from the outset. American politics is strong on ideals at the extremes of the parties, but pragmatism is what draws most of the electorate to the center. Dennis Kucinich was never in the center.

Of course, competing against a viable black candidate, a viable woman candidate, and (in the beginning) a viable Hispanic candidate did not help. Each of those represented constituencies which have been subject to some measure of oppression historically. The liberal components Kucinich relied upon were conflicted between an intellectual support for Kucinich's ideas and positions and an emotional inclination toward some sort of affirmative action. So, Dennis Kucinich was never able to line up the support he otherwise might have counted on.

Because Kucinich ran a campaign based entirely on ideals, I thought he might actually stay in the race even when it was obvious he had no chance of winning. Just being out there with his message seemed to serve a purpose. However, since he has been excluded from the most recent debates, his voice was not being heard.

Meanwhile, Dennis Kucinich is facing opposition in the race for his congressional seat from within his own party. Understandably, his challengers have complained that with all Kucinich's focus on the presidential race he has neglected his own district. (Of the remaining candidates, only John Edwards is immune from such charges.) While finding his voice greatly diminished in the presidential race, Kucinich is in danger of losing his congressional voice as well.

This predictable turn of circumstances has pushed Dennis Kucinich into making a very practical decision. To retain any significance, he must focus on his congressional re-election. Once again, pragmatism wins the day.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
January 25, 2008