Yeah, This Is A Post About Guns

While gun control is obviously a contentious issue for many Americans, I want to simply present some of the new proposals from the President in their undistilled form in order to cut past the partisan onslaught that has already taken over the debate. For the record, all of these quotes were taken from President Obama’s official gun policy proposal that came out today. (The full PDF can be seen here.)

• Require criminal background checks for all gun sales: Right now, federally licensed firearms dealers are required to run background checks on those buying guns, but studies estimate that nearly 40 percent of all gun sales are made by private sellers who are exempt from this requirement. A national survey of inmates found that only 12 percent of those who used a gun in a crime acquired it from a retail store or pawn shop, where a background check should have been run. Congress should pass legislation that goes beyond just closing the “gun show loophole” to require background checks for all firearm sales, with limited, common-sense exceptions for cases like certain transfers between family members and temporary transfers for hunting and sporting purposes.

This one is essentially a no-brainer. I cannot see how legitimate and traction-gripping claims could be made against an assertion that background checks should be mandatory for gun ownership. My only issue with the above quote is the inclusion of the “common-sense” phrasing. How many times over the past few years have you heard politicians refer to something as “common-sense”? It’s a pathetic ploy to appeal to the so-called “reasonable” side of all of us. It’s exclusionary speak — what if you do not feel that the phrase labeled as common-sense is, in fact, common-sense? Then you’re wrong. (According to the logic of that turn of phrase.)

• Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system: States are a critical source for several key categories of relevant records and data, including criminal history records and records of persons prohibited from having guns for mental health reasons. The Department of Justice will invest $20 million in FY2013 to give states stronger incentives to make this data available. The Administration is also proposing $50 million for this purpose in FY2014, and will look for additional ways to ensure that states are doing their part to provide relevant information.

While I would like further information on what the “incentives” are going to actually be, I agree that the implementation of across-the-board background checks should be a collaborative effort.

• Make sure dangerous people are prohibited from having guns: The background check system is designed to keep guns out of the hands of those forbidden by law to have them. But we need to make sure our laws are effective at identifying the dangerous or untrustworthy individuals that should not have access to guns. The President will direct the Attorney General, in consultation with other relevant agencies, to review the laws governing who is prohibited from having guns and make legislative and executive recommendations to ensure dangerous people aren’t slipping through the cracks.

Again, this is a simple and logical suggestion.

• Reinstate and strengthen the ban on assault weapons: The shooters in Aurora and Newtown used the type of semiautomatic rifles that were the target of the assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004. That ban was an important step, but manufacturers were able to circumvent the prohibition with cosmetic modifications to their weapons. Congress must reinstate and strengthen the prohibition on assault weapons.

Here we go. I’m not going to dive into the argument of what, exactly, constitutes an “assault” weapon. It’s a pointless (and circular) discussion that will never have an end. This particular piece of the proposal will not go through. It’s too vague to be successful.

That said, here is my personal view about what type of gun should be allowed for sale:

If the gun did not exist in the 18th century, it should be illegal for personal use. Look: when the constitution was written, the most advanced gun was essentially incapable of hitting a human after seventy yards. It could only fire about four times in a minute. Guns today? The phenomenal increase in accuracy and fire speed could never have been predicted by those who were saying that even 18th century muskets should be “well regulated.”

So, then, how is it unreasonable to address the second amendment head-on? The language of the amendment has not changed since the document was written. Guns have changed in ways that defy imagination. Why can we not address this disparity? The constitution was meant to be changed, to be expanded upon — why is this one amendment somehow a holy exception to the legislative process?

If you want to own a gun — fine. But, in my opinion, you should only be allowed to own antiques, barring new constitutional action.

• Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds: The case for prohibiting high-capacity magazines has been proven over and over; the shooters at Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek, and Newtown all used magazines holding more than 10 rounds, which would have been prohibited under the 1994 law. These magazines enable any semiautomatic weapon to be used as an instrument of mass violence, yet they are once again legal and now come standard with many handguns and rifles. Congress needs to reinstate the prohibition on magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

This change stands a better chance at success than a blanket ban. Why does anybody (in the public sphere) need a gun with more than ten rounds in it? It doesn’t make sense. The only reason automatic weapons were invented was for murder. Hunting rifles, by and large, remain single-shot. I understand that some hunters like to use automatics for specific types of hunting, and that’s fine, but the original purpose of the gun is to kill people.

We do not, therefore, need large magazines that are designed to do nothing but kill. And don’t tell me that you can reload quickly — I’m sure you can — but the fact that you need to reload at all before you can continue your bullet spree ensures that there is time for somebody to stop you, if need be.

• Conduct research on the causes and prevention of gun violence, including links between video games, media images, and violence: The President is issuing a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and scientific agencies to conduct research into the causes and prevention of gun violence. It is based on legal analysis that concludes such research is not prohibited by any appropriations language. The CDC will start immediately by assessing existing strategies for preventing gun violence and identifying the most pressing research questions, with the greatest potential public health impact. And the Administration is calling on Congress to provide $10 million for the CDC to conduct further research, including investigating the relationship between video games, media images, and violence.

Video games finally make an appearance! Surprisingly, though, they are not demonized. Indeed, they are included with other forms of media under an umbrella of a generally violent culture. This is good. Even though there have never been accurate, conclusive studies to show a connection between video games and real world violence, a little introspection and investigation can have nothing but positive results.

•Protect the rights of health care providers to talk to their patients about gun safety: Doctors and other health care providers also need to be able to ask about firearms in their patients’ homes and safe storage of those firearms, especially if their patients show signs of certain mental illnesses or if they have a young child or mentally ill family member at home. Some have incorrectly claimed that language in the Affordable Care Act prohibits doctors from asking their patients about guns and gun safety. Medical groups also continue to fight against state laws attempting to ban doctors from asking these questions. The Administration will issue guidance clarifying that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit or otherwise regulate communication between doctors and patients, including about firearms.

This seems like a reasonable precaution, especially given that the number of violent gun crimes committed by those with mental issues is statistically significant.

• Launch a national responsible gun ownership campaign: The Administration will encourage gun owners to take responsibility for keeping their guns safe with a national campaign. The campaign will promote common-sense gun safety measures like the use of gun safes and trigger locks, separate storage of guns and ammunition, and the reporting of lost and stolen weapons to law enforcement.

Although “common-sense” is rearing its ugly head again, I find this to be one of the most reasonable proposals on the list. This quote demonstrates that, of course, Obama does not wish to take anybody’s guns away. Personal responsibility is a perfectly reasonable measure to take in order to guard against possible incidents.

• Put up to 1,000 new school resource officers and school counselors on the job: The Administration is proposing a new Comprehensive School Safety program, which will help school districts hire staff and make other critical investments in school safety. The program will give $150 million to school districts and law enforcement agencies to hire school resource officers, school psychologists, social workers, and counselors. The Department of Justice will also develop a model for using school resource officers, including best practices on age-appropriate methods for working with students.

Schools will naturally play a large part in this discussion, and it can never hurt to have more staff inside of increasingly crowded schools. I cannot see a problem with this proposal.

• Support individuals ages 16 to 25 at high risk for mental illness: Efforts to prevent school shootings and other gun violence can’t end when a student leaves high school. Individuals ages 16 to 25 are at high risk for mental illness, substance abuse, and suicide, but they are among the least likely to seek help. Even those who received services as a child may fall through the cracks when they turn 18. The Administration is proposing $25 million for innovative state-based strategies supporting young people ages 16 to 25 with mental health or substance abuse issues.

This should have already been a focus in this country.

—————————-

There are many other proposals that were featured in the document that I did not decide to include in this post. I merely chose the ones that I could talk about intelligently and that would be important for the discussion moving forward.

It’s true — I don’t like guns. I am, however, surrounded by them. There are more guns in my family than there are people. I skeet shoot occasionally. I enjoy archery.

The types of weapons that have been used in these recent crimes, though, simply do not need to be owned by civilians. If you want to defend your homestead (a particularly antiquated notion), you can do so swimmingly with a shotgun. Or a bat. Or a taser. You do not need an AR-15 to stop all of the “bad” people who constantly assault your house.

Your guns aren’t being taken away (unless they are now illegal or soon-to-be illegal, and then.. I don’t feel bad for you. Automatic weapons of war have no place in a home) — they are simply becoming better-organized members of society.

My prediction is that about half of these proposals will pass through the system. None of the contentious ones will make it through. To use military parlance, though, it could be said that this is a war of attrition. Big, sweeping changes will not be accepted. Little changes, however, may eventually accumulate into a substantial difference.

I hope.

Uncle Ben Was Right

With the absolute deluge of political ads littering the airwaves during this election season, it is a small miracle that not every voting citizen is an expert on presidential politic and policy. Of course, the information that we are presented with in political adverts is useless. It is accusatory and inflammatory. They talk above each other; across each other.

It should be no surprise, then, when the “electorate” is composed of individuals like this:

I have lots of respect for the folks at NewLeftMedia (the makers of above video). During the last election cycle, they produced a series of well-reasoned shorts like the one above that featured the ignorance of the voting populace. This is not a phenomenon that is restricted to the Republican party, either — all political parties are equally guilty of willful ignorance.

While it could be true that the ignorance displayed in the video is the consequence of selective editing and not an indication of the electorate as a whole, it is nevertheless disturbing that any individual could spout the worthless drivel that spews from the mouths of the aforementioned.

Where has fact-checking gone? Why are politicians not held accountable for the statements that they make in a meaningful manner? I attempt to stay fair in my political analyses for the sake of discussion and argument. At this point, however, I will simply state that Mitt Romney and/or his campaign folks are liars. They lie. Constantly. And what do people do? They listen to it, they believe it, then they regurgitate it.

“Jeeps in China”:

The Romney campaign ad says Obama “sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China” at the cost of American jobs. The ad leaves the clear impression that Jeeps built in China come at the expense of American workers.

The ad miscasts the government’s role in Fiat’s acquisition of Chrysler, and it misrepresents the outcome. Chrysler’s owners had been trying to sell to Italy-based Fiat before Obama took office. The ad ignores the return of American jobs to Chrysler Jeep plants in the United States, and it presents the manufacture of Jeeps in China as a threat, rather than an opportunity to sell cars made in China to Chinese consumers. It strings together facts in a way that presents an wholly inaccurate picture.

“$4,000 Tax on Middle-Class”:

The Romney campaign ad says Obama’s policies are a $4,000 tax hike on the middle class. But their evidence is a study from the American Enterprise Institute that looks at public debt.

The campaign makes a giant leap when it assumes the debt will be serviced with increased taxes on all income levels and in the time frame it suggests. We actually don’t know how the tax code will spread around the pain of paying for the debt; right now, Obama is proposing tax increases only on higher income households.

Finally, we should point out that debt payments would rise even if Romney wins the presidency. If you accept the ad’s logic, then you’d have to accept that Romney too plans tax increases for the middle class.

The campaign distorts the meaning of the study to score political points.

“Regulations Quadrupled”:

Romney said that regulations and the rate of regulations quadrupled under Obama. He was basing that on the Heritage study, but he did not include important caveats about how the study was conducted.

And more importantly, the actual data on regulations show Obama’s rate of regulations is no different from the past 18 years.

This is a broad claim describing its own evidence inaccurately. False.

“Apology Tour”:

Once again, Romney has accused Obama of beginning his presidency “with an apology tour.”

Our reviews of Obama’s 2009 foreign travels and speeches showed no such thing. While he criticized past U.S. actions, such as torture practices at Guantanamo, he did not offer one  apology.

It’s ridiculous to call Obama’s foreign visits and remarks “an apology tour.

These talking points have been repeated, ad nauseum, since the beginning of this election cycle. They are all entirely false and purposefully misleading. Has the president told lies during the course of this campaign? Of course. He has been misleading with regards to Romney’s immigration policy and stance on the auto bailout, for example. But these lies and mis-quotes on behalf of the president and his campaign are nothing compared to the repeated attempts of the Republican party to mislead the voting populace. (Disagree? Prove me wrong.)

The strange truth of the matter is that the Republicans probably did not have to lie in order for their message to be successfully transmitted to the American public — there are valid criticisms to make of Obama’s economy. Instead, they have focused on a slightly bizarre strategy of painting the current president as “un-American” or “weak.” These are transparent claims. They hold no weight when based against reality. (Of course, Republican strategists are wishing that reality will be conveniently forgotten about on election day.)

Reality shows that economic numbers are improving. Reality shows that Obama’s favor-ability numbers are strong. Reality shows that the world would much rather have the current president in the White House than Romney.

So … what will it be? The malleable Romney? The steady Obama? Polling displays results across the board, although most respected and well-researched statisticians are beginning to report positive election prospects for Obama. 

In the end, the result of the election will be entirely dependent upon the whims of the general population of the United States. Do we deserve such political clout when coupled with our weak grasp of policy? Of course, we should have the power. That power defines representative democracy. However. Just because our constitution gives us this great right of election does not mean that we can afford to be an ill-informed public. Great power does beget great responsibility.

We can do better. Read the issues. Become informed. Participate.

Momentous “Momentum”

In less than two weeks, this country will be blessedly free of political ads. Ever try to watch Wheel of Fortune or Jeopardy during election season? It’s a minefield of attack ads and misinformation during commercial breaks. I get it — the targeted demographic of voters (read: elderly) tend to watch the nightly antics of Pat and Alex. Nonetheless, I will be greatly relieved when I can again enjoy commercials about car insurance and questionable food chains in peace.

Unfortunately, I live in a state next to the (surprisingly) contentious state of Virginia. I live so close to that state, in fact, that most of the information relayed through political commercials is related to Virginia. There is a close race there for the presidency, of that there can be no doubt, but is it worth the drama? The utter inundation?

It’s a thorny issue. You see, the race is not as close as the media wants you to think it is. While the popular vote (in the end) will be close, the electoral college has another outcome in mind.

Nate Silver runs a mindbogglingly complex blog here that painstakingly calculates the potential outcome of the election based on all of the reputable polls in the country, economic indicators, senate/presidential approval ratings, and historical trends. While the calculations involved are beyond my admittedly meager grasp of the field of statistics, I can at least appreciate the level of effort involved in the formulation of such a model.

According to Silver (as of October 25th), President Obama has a 71% chance of winning a second term. 71% is quite a larger number than the number represented by the constant stream of polling that declares this race to be nothing more than a “horse race” now. Do I put all of my cards with Silver? Of course not. While I agree with his methods, I cannot speak to his level of prescience. But I do think that his model is a better indicator of what will happen in November than what is provided to the public through the media.

Here’s why: Ohio and Virginia (along with one or two others) will absolutely determine who the next president is. You live in a state that is not one of those two? Too bad. Although your vote is still important for the base of the voting block for your party, it is not important enough to have a direct outcome on this election. Why is this?

From Wikipedia:

The Electoral College is an example of an indirect election, consisting of 538 electors who officially elect the President and Vice President of the United States. The number of electors is equal to the total voting membership of the United States Congress, 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, plus three electors from the District of Columbia.^[1]Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution specifies the number of electors to which each state is entitled and state legislatures decide how they are chosen.

Voters in each state and the District of Columbia cast ballots selecting electors pledged to presidential and vice presidential candidates. In nearly all states, electors are awarded on a winner-take-all basis to the candidate who wins the most votes in that state. Although electors are not required by federal law to honor a pledge, in the overwhelming majority of cases they vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged.^[2][3] The Twelfth Amendment provides for each elector to cast one vote for President and one vote for Vice President. It also specifies how a President and Vice President are elected. The Twenty-third Amendment specifies how many electors the District of Columbia is entitled to have.

Critics argue that the Electoral College is inherently undemocratic and gives swing states disproportionate influence in electing the President and Vice President. Proponents argue that the Electoral College is an important, distinguishing feature offederalism in the United States and that it protects the rights of smaller states. Numerous constitutional amendments have been introduced in the Congress seeking to alter the Electoral College or replace it with a direct popular vote.

It is a confusing system that places far too much weight on individual “swing” states. This creates unhealthy political atmospheres in those states, granting them with special legislative attention before and after election season while simultaneously flooding them with insulting levels of political propaganda during the heat of the season. Remember Florida in 2000? Nothing more really needs to be said.

President Obama stands at a 71% with Silver’s model precisely because of a simultaneous rise in general polling from Obama coupled with a constant and appreciable lead in Ohio. But have you heard about this probability on the news or radio? Of course not. Silver attempts to break down the cognitive dissonance:

Some of the polls, especially the Time magazine poll which had Mr. Obama five points ahead in Ohio, seemed to set off a lot of discussion on Twitter, as though people were surprised that Mr. Obama still held the lead there.

But these polls are really nothing new. Since the Denver debate, Mr. Obama has held the lead in 16 Ohio polls against 6 for Mr. Romney. In Nevada, Mr. Obama has had the lead in 11 polls, to Mr. Romney’s 1. Mr. Obama has led in all polls of Wisconsin since the Denver debate, and he has had five poll leads in Iowa to one for Mr. Romney.

Part of the confusion (and part of the reason behind the perception that Mr. Romney is still gaining ground in the race) may be because of the headlines that accompany polls.

Conspiracy Theory Time: The media wants to portray the race as a close one. Close contests beget higher ratings for those broadcasting them. Who wants to watch a moderate victory unfold? It isn’t very exciting. So — in order to get ratings — the media actively promotes the misleading notion that the popular vote numbers are the numbers that will decide this election.

Naturally, these predictions of who will or will not win any given state are only as good as any other predictions — which is to say that they should all be taken with a heaping spoonful of salt.

It is important to remember, however, that the system through which our president is elected is not as cut-and-dry as a simple up and down vote. That would make too much sense! That said, it should still be emphasized that your vote absolutely matters — it just matters more if you live in one of the “chosen” lands.

My prediction?

I think that President Obama will win. He will probably win Ohio .. and that will be enough for victory, assuming that he picks up a few of the so-called swing states out West.

Mitt Romney could win as well, though his path to victory is decidedly more difficult. He requires almost all of the swing states in order to collect a victory. Obama requires a mere few.

All of that aside (after election day), ask yourself: Do you like the way in which we elect a president? Does it seem fair to you? If it does, keep rolling.

If not … make some noise.

Presidential Debate Two: Honesty Versus Denial

The second presidential debate of the 2012 election season has passed into the annals of political history and theater. Was it worth the ninety minutes that millions of citizens of the world spent watching it? Almost. Did it sway the (questionable) number of undecided voters in the room? Probably not. Did it sway my vote? Certainly not.

It is my opinion that the candidates were not seeking to really engage or influence the undecided voters in the room or at home. They want to mobilize their bases in order to ensure solid turn-outs come November. As Romney and Obama are (historically) moderate in actuality, they must distance themselves from each other over the bread-and-butter topics of politics in order to create an illusion of difference that will excite the public.

Because of this, the debate was remarkably contentious. Before the so-called “debate season” started, both candidates agreed to a set of rules that would govern how they perform in the debates to come. One of the hallmark notes from that agreement stated that the candidates were not allowed to ask each other direct questions during the town-hall format debate. Clearly, this rule was not upheld during the Hofstra event.

President Obama and Governor Romney repeatedly asked each other questions, not allowing the other to gain the argumentative upper hand, if there can be such a thing. Obama, fresh off of his lackluster performance during the Colorado debate, was prepared to be significantly more aggressive toward Romney during the debate, and it showed. He refused to let Romney control the flow, and (more importantly) the tone of the debate.

President Obama: He was measured. He maintained a calm demeanor in order to portray an image of quiet assertiveness that is naturally associated with the office of the presidency. After Governor Romney accused President Obama of politicizing the Libya event, there was genuine anger in the president’s eyes at the accusation. Obama, however, did not lose his cool — he stayed calm and delivered a sharp retort to the governor that was one of the strongest moments of the debate.

Was this tactic effective? I would tend to think so. The Hofstra Debate Obama matches the 2008 Campaigning Obama that the Democrats fell in love with. It was a much-wanted return to form for the democratic contender.

Mitt Romney: He, on the other hand, maintained his usual demeanor of disbelieving republicrat. He did an excellent job of transmitting his message to the audience about the economy. It is in the economy that Romney has his strongest argument — it cannot be denied that the economy (right now) is not well. Whether this is Obama’s fault is another question altogether, but correlation is causation for the purposes of politics.

Romney’s other positions were not as well expressed. That said, it was not really the fault of Romney that his messages about immigration, foreign policy, taxes, and the role of women were not as eloquently expressed as were his views on the economy. It was Obama’s fault. President Obama, not Governor Romney, was the one in control of the flow of the discussion through his insistence that the truth be told.

Was, then, the truth told?
Here’s what FactCheck.org states (to see citations, view the link):

The second Obama-Romney debate was heated, confrontational and full of claims that sometimes didn’t match the facts.

• Obama challenged Romney to “get the transcript” when Romney questioned the president’s claim to have spoken of an “act of terror” the day after the slaying of four Americans in Libya. The president indeed referred to “acts of terror” that day, but then refrained from using such terms for weeks.
• Obama claimed Romney once called Arizona’s “papers, please” immigration law a “model” for the nation. He didn’t. Romney said that of an earlier Arizona law requiring employers to check the immigration status of employees.
• Obama falsely claimed Romney once referred to wind-power jobs as “imaginary.” Not true. Romney actually spoke of “an imaginary world” where “windmills and solar panels could power the economy.”
• Romney said repeatedly he won’t cut taxes for the wealthy, a switch from his position during the GOP primaries, when he said the top 1 percent would be among those to benefit.
• Romney said “a recent study has shown” that taxes “will” rise on the middle class by $4,000 as a result of federal debt increases since Obama took office. Not true. That’s just one possible way debt service could be financed.
• Romney claimed 580,000 women have lost jobs under Obama. The true figure is closer to 93,000.
• Romney claimed the automakers’ bankruptcy that Obama implemented was “precisely what I recommend.” Romney did favor a bankruptcy followed by federal loan guarantees, but not the direct federal aid that Obama insists was essential.
• Romney said he would keep Pell Grants for low-income college students “growing.” That’s a change. Both Romney and his running mate, Ryan, have previously said they’d limit eligibility.

The answer, as usual, is “sort-of.” They sort-of told the truth. They danced around the truth in way that made pundits around the country either dance with glee or froth with rage. It was, in its own way, a beautiful display of truth-dodging. While Obama came out ahead on the overall fact-count, he still had a few decent mis-truths evident in his debate.

In short, it’s expected. Typical. Disappointing.

What, then, is there left to discuss? They were adequate performances from seasoned politicians. I just happen to agree with the positions of the current president more than those of the contender.

A few short notes:
Benghazi Moment: Yes, Romney stepped in it. But — who cares? Why does it matter when Obama stated that it was a terror attack? How can that have any effect on anything, ever? It cannot. It was a waste of time.

Interruptions Abound: While heated arguments are exciting, they are also confusing. I hope that this fast/furious debate style does not become the norm for future events of this nature. They both talked over the moderator (though Romney did not manage to make it look as cool as Obama did).

“Binders Full of Women:” The internet is already in love of that quote. Expect to hear endless memes and jokes about it. And, to be honest, it was a genuinely strange choice of words to refer to resumes of potential employees.

I look forward to the last debate. Hopefully it will be a little bit more controlled, and (even more) hopefully, it will be more full of substance. As the debate is, ostensibly, supposed to be about foreign policy, I expect more candor. It is much harder to fudge the facts on war and the world at large than it is to stretch the truth on the minutiae of economic policy.

Presidential Debate One: Style Versus Substance

October 3rd met the country with the first presidential debate of the 2012 election season. Anticipation going into the evening in Colorado was extremely high, although both candidates were downplaying their forensic skills before they took to the actual stage.

Jim Lehrer, the moderator of the debate, announced that the format would be a loose one: there were predetermined sections about domestic policy that focused (almost exclusively) on the economy. Two minute statements would be allowed at the beginning of every section with open discussion following.

Before I discuss how the candidates performed, I want to make a statement about the debate format and its moderator: the format was abysmal and Lehrer should retire to the green pastures of PBS. It was awful. While the idea of a structured (but open) discussion between the two candidates is a nice one, both Romney and Obama completely controlled the pacing and content of the debate, constantly talking over and interrupting Lehrer, who was about as effective as a child trying to chime into an argument between his parents.

While the candidates should not be excused for their behavior towards the moderator, the moderator is still the one who is absolutely responsible for the debate. He unequivocally failed.

But — to the most important question of all! Who won the debate?
Here’s a hint: Nobody.

How can an individual win a debate that is not a debate at all? There are no points. There is no proper form of argument taking place. Contemporary “debates” in the political sphere are glorified campaign commercials. Talking points and obnoxious “zingers” are focused on with a heavy emphasis on repetition of key phrases. How many times did we hear the words “716 Billion,” “taxes,” “deficit,” or 5 Trillion” last night? Too many to count.

To “win” a modern debate, one must focus on established lines of dialogue and (unfortunately) act. Ever since Nixon lost to Kennedy in the first televised debate, appearance and decorum have come to mean almost as much as what is actually said.

So, then, how did they perform?

Barack Obama: Obama’s strategy during the first debate appeared to be one that focused on maintaining the status quo. He did not approach Romney with anything close to an aggressive nature — he remained his distanced, intellectual self. Early in the debate, he actually said “Listen to this; this is instructive.”

That alone should tell you about the tone with which he carried himself during the debate. While I am perfectly happy to listen to Professor Obama extol the virtues of Plan A or Plan B, it was not the correct strategy when facing an opponent who was so clearly attempting an aggressive political move (more on that in a bit).

The president stuck to his constant political message of “forward” and “middle-class” with a heavy focus on detail and statistics. It was substantive. It was also boring.

While numbers and details are vitally important during an election season (as can be seen from Romney’s complete lack of them), they are not effective or engaging when thrown into the faces in the audience who are not particularly looking for them. People want substance, but they want understandable substance. Barack Obama very much failed to deliver relate-able content.

From a factual perspective, the current president did fairly well. From FactCheck.org (see link for citations):

• Obama again touted his “$4 trillion” deficit reduction plan, which includes $1 trillion from winding down wars that are coming to an end in any event.
• Obama again said he’d raise taxes on upper-income persons only to the “rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president.” Actually, many high-income persons would pay more than they did then, because of new taxes in Obama’s health care law.
• Obama said 5 million private-sector jobs had been created in the past 30 months. Perhaps so, but that counts jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics won’t add to the official monthly tallies until next year. For now, the official tally is a bit over 4.6 million.
• Obama oversold his health care law, claiming that health care premiums have “gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years.” That’s true of health care spending, but not premiums. And the health care law had little to do with the slowdown in overall spending.

Mitt Romney: Romney came into the debate with a decidedly aggressive stance. He was almost always on the offensive, and his constant practice from the past week clearly shows through his performance. His demeanor was one of a confident man, and he was clearly primed to make a move against the common public perception of him as a weak individual.

His strategy, however, was a bit harder to pin down. Romney refused to be pinned down into any one stance or view on any given policy during the debate. When he did make unequivocal statements, they were statements of typical Republican policies that nobody asked a question about in the first place, like military spending and the role of the constitution.

When pressed for details about any of his plans, he avoided the question (perhaps intelligently). By not allowing himself to be bogged down in minutiae, he was able to rise above detail in order to embrace the meta-narrative of the debate: that Romney was not who he was being painted as. While this was a success in the eyes of Republicans and Romney fans, it was not a success from a rational standpoint.

Unfortunately for Romney, his stances from the debate do not appear to coincide with his political stances from the past year or so. They are almost entirely different. By embracing a .. fluid .. definition of his own platform, Romney was able to effectively seize the moment.

How was he, however, on the facts?
Not so good. From Politifact.org:

Romney sometimes came off as a serial exaggerator. He said “up to” 20 million might lose health insurance under the new law, citing a Congressional Budget Office study that actually put the likely number who would lose employer-sponsored coverage at between 3 million and 5 million. He said 23 million Americans are “out of work” when the actual number of jobless is much lower. He claimed half of all college grads this year can’t find work, when, in fact, an AP story said half either were jobless orunderemployed. And he again said Obama “cut” $716 billion from Medicare, a figure that actually reflects a 10-year target for slowing Medicare spending, which will continue to grow.

As for one of the most-repeated Romney talking points about Obama’s so-called “destruction” of Medicare:

Romney went on to say, “I want to take that $716 billion you’ve cut and put it back into Medicare.” But the fact is, the money isn’t being taken away from Medicare. Instead, Medicare would spend it, but over a longer period of time than was expected before the health care law. The law extends the solvency of the Medicare Part A trust fund.

And about jobs:

Romney overstated the number of unemployed Americans when he said that there were “23 million people out of work.” There were 12.5 million unemployed Americans in August, the most recent figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

So what does this all mean?
In my opinion, Mitt Romney performed better. Barack Obama had better things to say. Neither of them, however, did a spectacular job when the total picture is looked at. Romney will find increased support numbers out of this debate, I am sure, though I am not sure that it will make a difference in the long run.

The president will likely find no change in his numbers, as he played it about as safe as it can get. The lasting impression of this debate (as has been painted by the media) is that the gap between the candidates is closing. The cynical me views this as a tactic to encourage people to watch their programming.

The logical me says that it just doesn’t matter. People have already decided who they will vote for — this debate was just an exercise in controlled confusion and message transmission.

Pathetic Punditry

I sometimes listen to the Patriot radio station on Sirius. (For the uninitiated, “Patriot” is a station devoted to far, far right political talk.)

This is almost always a mistake.

Although I vehemently disagree with everything said by Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Co. on that channel,  it fascinates my morbid curiosity. After all, it is always good to know what the opposition is saying.

But, as I was listening to Glenn Beck today describe the events happening in the world today as nothing but a prelude to the inevitable World War III, I had to question my motives. Are these politicos really the opposition? They certainly don’t appear to be living in a world based on any type of reality. Facts don’t matter. They cherry-pick data and sound bites in order to forward whatever their message of the day happens to be.

When Mitt Romney had the “damning” 47% tape come out against him, they immediately put forward a video of Obama saying something also “controversial.” It’s like a child’s game.

Should they, then, be considered as opposition? Why are we even viewing them in that manner? See — there’s the rub.

Although it may be trite to say that the politics in America are divisive, it is nonetheless accurate. It is black or it is white. There is no middle ground to be found — those who seek it fall (eventually) into the realm of obscurity and failure. (Poor Ron Paul.) Politicians are forced to take extreme stances during the elections in order to fit into the preconceived notion of what a person in that position should mold to.

Mitt Romney is guilty of this, in particular. While I do not believe that he is as flip-floppish as he is painted, he is certainly guilty of wearing masks in order to appeal to whatever crowd he is pandering to. The Republican party and their placement of Romney as their nominee forces him to “toe the Republican line,” as it is. This is unfortunate for Romney, who has been (historically) moderate.

As a result, the race is being described as a “clear choice between options for the future.” Both sides are saying this — and it troubles me greatly.

Why should we desire an easy choice for president? Nothing about that job or the electoral choice in November should be easy. We should demand quality information and quality answers from our candidates — not simply accept them as the latest in the assembly line of Washington D.C. Although the debates are near in the future, they will provide nothing that has not been heard hundreds of times already in stump speeches and campaign commercials.

Our intelligence is not viewed highly enough to ensure that a substantive debate takes place. We get, instead, the third-grade level treatment of repetition. Truthfully, we probably deserve such treatment as a result of our national voter turn-out statistics. If we do not show interest, how can the ones who we “support” presume to do the same?

The system is confused.

SO — what is the answer? It is as it always has been: participate.

For the record, I will be voting for President Obama in November. Why?

• I am very liberal on social issues — Obama has been as well.
• I support government mandated health care. (Just on philosophy alone.)
• Obama’s foreign policy has been strong.
  • I am pleased that he is seeking to remove America from the Middle East as a warring presence. As I am (essentially) isolationist, this pleases me. It is not our place to police the world. Ever.
• I genuinely believe that a Keynesian economic model is stronger than the like that Romney and the Republicans favor.

It does not matter who you vote for — as long as you have reasons. If you are voting based on sound clips you hear from your favorite news channel or what you heard from a friend, you are doing a disservice to the country. Seek information for yourself from reputable websites like: http://www.politifact.com/ (leans slightly right) and http://www.factcheck.org/.

We deserve better than a 24 hour news cycle dominated by so-called “gaffes” coupled with a smattering of misquotes.

Educate yourself.
Get involved.
Vote.

The Art of Speechification (Pretty Words)

Speeches at the DNC and RNC are, for the most part, terribly formulaic. Humans are very adept at finding patterns in the “noise,” so it becomes easy for us to tune out speeches that sound like broken records. Here’s the general template for a political rabble rouser:

• Personal introduction with pleasing anecdote.
• Possible attempt at humor (usually not well received).
• Call/Response of some pithy catch phrase created in order to gain audience participation.
• Small mention of the political candidate that the speech is (ostensibly) about.
• Another personal anecdote: family/religion/war/all of the above.
• (Raise volume of voice) “And the next president will be … “

That’s about it. The formulas work so well because the speeches really do not hold any information that matters. If you were to examine most of the speeches from the RNC, you would find that they did not hold much information that was important for listeners to actually know. There were incredible appeals to emotion, yes. These were effective moments! If that is what the audience really needed to hear, then there would be nothing to complain about.

These moments, however, were not nearly enough. We deserve substantive content. Appeals to emotion can only take you so far in the real world. Although they are pleasing, they are not useful. They are worthless. How can the public make an informed decision if they are not informed? Sure, the Republicans have (deserved) differences between themselves and Democrats. That’s why the parties exist. But why did they not discuss actual plans for the future, aside from broad strokes? It should have been better.

What, then, did Mitt Romney deliver during his RNC keynote? This:

To quote from FactCheck.org (source on link):

In a speech heavy on anecdotal history but short on policy details, Mitt Romney avoided major falsehoods in making his case to the American public while accepting the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention.

In essence, Mitt Romney gave the formulaic speech. The safe speech. Although this is not bad, it is not good. He managed to give a speech without a bevy of lies (much unlike his running-mate) and was then praised for his comparative truthiness. If I have ever seen a case of damning with faint praise, this is clearly it.

The American public deserves information and reason, not rhetoric and emotion. The rub, though, is that the Republican base located at the RNC truly enjoyed the complete lack of information in favor of rabble-rousing Americanisms. Do we not deserve better than blatant lies (Ryan) and avoidance of truths (Romney)?

In contrast, I present to you Bill Clinton’s speech:

To quote from FactCheck.org:

Former President Bill Clinton’s stem-winding nomination speech was a fact-checker’s nightmare: lots of effort required to run down his many statistics and factual claims, producing little for us to write about.

Republicans will find plenty of Clinton’s scorching opinions objectionable. But with few exceptions, we found his stats checked out.

President Clinton managed to give an (albeit lengthy) speech about the real issues through use of actual facts. He spoke to his audience — not down to them. The patented Republican Rosy Glasses of Yesteryear were gone as Clinton took a brazen path forward in a mission to educate the American public about Obama’s presidency. Although this was only a necessity because of the sheer amount of misinformation that is being transmitted through the Republican party, it was still a brilliant exercise in speech-giving.

Clinton has always been a strong speech-giver, and this keynote was a perfect example of his style. He respects his audience. He assumes that they are capable of rational thought, not just emotional knee-jerkage (‘MERICA). The tone, therefore, was elevated while also being inclusive.

Does it matter how well President Obama does tonight during his speech? Not really. All he needs to do is ride the wave created by Clinton and some of the other speakers into a charismatic finale. I fully expect a Clinton-esque level of discourse with a usual smattering of crowd-pleasing one-liners. Whether he makes the grade does not matter at this point — the tone and legacy of this DNC has already been established through its strong difference of the RNC.

Though it is difficult for me, I am attempting to step back from my party in order to compare the conventions. Truly, the DNC is a far better representation of what the American population needs in order to move forward as a democratic body than the RNC was. The message was more positive. There was no old man yelling at a chair.

What does it mean about the election? Probably not very much. This is not an election about the middle, unfortunately. It is an election about turn-out.

Vote.
I don’t care who you vote for.
Just vote.

Addled Advertising

For your consideration, I present to you the following ad:

Mitt Romney’s questionable singing skills non-withstanding, this ad is an entirely unnecessary (although admittedly effective) slam against Romney’s past policies and practices. But is the information found within the ad true? The hauntingly horrific music swells over clippings and quotes from newspaper and other media that paint Romney as a man who outsources and creates jobs — just not in the correct country.

FactCheck.org, one of two good political accountability websites (the other being Politifact.com) posted an entire article that deconstructed the various claims from the Obama campaign about outsourcing from Romney and his previous place of employment, Bain Capital. You can read the article in full here. 

Here is a summary from the article that explains their findings:

Obama accuses Romney in a series of TV ads of being a “corporate raider” who “shipped jobs to China and Mexico,” asking if voters want to elect an “outsourcer in chief.” But some of the claims in the ads are untrue, and others are thinly supported.

Bain Capital, the venture capital firm founded by Romney in 1984, is the focus of the Obama campaign’s attacks. There is no question that Bain invested in some companies that helped other companies outsource work and that some of that work went overseas. That was the core business for Modus Media and SMTC Corp. — two outsource companies featured in a June 21 article in the Washington Post that has been the basis of recent Obama TV ads. Bain also invested in U.S.-based companies that sold goods manufactured here and abroad, and some of those companies closed U.S. facilities and eliminated U.S. jobs.

But after reviewing numerous corporate filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, contemporary news accounts, company histories and press releases, and the
evidence offered by both the Obama and Romney campaigns, we found no evidence to support the claim that Romney — while he was still running Bain Capital — shipped American jobs overseas.

So, in the end, it appears that Obama’s latest series of ads have been misleading.

We deserve better.

How does Mitt Romney, on the other hand, compare to Obama’s outsourcing oversights? Here is one of his most recent ads:

The ad opens with a grainy cell-phone video (is the lack of hard focus supposed to make us turn against Obama? Strange.) of Obama claiming that “If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.” Romney’s ad attempts to paint Obama as an outsider — an elitist who does not understand what it takes to make a business in America. This quote from Obama, though, was taken completely out of context. Here is the full excerpt:

“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

“The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

“So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the G.I. Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.”

The ad’s leading quote is indicated in bold within the second line of this excerpt from a greater speech that Obama gave in Roanoke, VA. As you can see, the villainous line (read: sarcasm) was taken completely out of context and used against its original meaning. Obama’s entire message from that speech was that it takes teamwork and community to create success, which is exactly what Mitt Romney is saying that he can do “better.”

It’s pathetic.

It is, however, entirely expected. You see, it is now that unfortunate time in the American election cycle when political “attack” ads clog network television airways during prime-time hours.

In short: is this the best that we can do? Why must our chosen candidates sling falsehoods and baseless accusations at each other for months before the actual election? Why must this political paradigm exist at all?

Intelligent dialogue between candidates is what the American public needs in order to make an informed decision about their president. Do these ads create intelligent and informed dialogue? Not even a little bit. Although we have the debates to (sort of) look forward to in the fall, they do not create informed discussion any more than these attack ads do. Presidential debates are pale and paltry imitations of a real debate that end up being no better than a second-grade school yard argument over marbles.

Political affiliation should not matter during the election cycle. All citizens of this country should expect nothing but abject honesty from its candidates. I am a Democrat. I will vote for Obama in November. I am not, however, pleased with his actions with advertising of late. Why can we not rise above these arguments?

Both Obama and Romney need to take a step back and analyze how they are addressing the country through their negativity. Attack ads do not inspire or impress. Attack ads, if anything, turn individuals off from the voting process entirely. How is this useful in a democratic society? It is not.

We must begin to expect straight answers and accountability out of our candidates. Although we peons of society have no control over advertising, we do have some measure of control over debates. Once the venues and moderators are announced, I would strongly suggest that all interested persons e-mail or contact the appropriate parties in order to suggest a true debate format. Let us have true discussion — not just regurgitation and repartee.

President Obama and Mitt Romney: Step it up. We are done with your juvenile games.

Move forward — make a difference.

 

Health Scare

WARNING: Slightly biased political content ahead.
So, this thing happened today.

President Obama’s proposed health care law was upheld by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote framed within an incredibly dense political maelstrom. President Obama released a statement extolling the virtues of his plan as he celebrated the victory, while the presumptive Republican nominee for president, Mitt Romney, stated that this new law is nothing more than a “tax on the middle class.”

Which side is correct? I am not a constitutional scholar. I cannot speak to the legality or constitutionality of the law. I can, however, express how I feel about it. It’s a good change. Unfortunately, it is an incredibly complicated law. The popular info-grabbing website called Reddit featured a post a few weeks ago that explained the basic tenets of Obama’s health care policy. Here it is in its entirety (Explanation provided by Reddit user CaspianX2):

What people call “Obamacare” is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, people were calling it “Obamacare” before everyone even hammered out what it would be. It’s a term mostly used by people who don’t like the PPACA, and it’s become popularized in part because PPACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that.

Anyway, the PPACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn’t have to.

So what does it do? Well, here is everything, in the order of when it goes into effect (because some of it happens later than other parts of it):

Already in effect:

• It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices)
• It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less)
• It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn’t directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181)
• It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 )
• It makes a “high-risk pool” for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of “pre-existing conditions” altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered “pre-existing conditions” can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them.
• It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.
• It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B )
• It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won’t get any more coverage because they have hit a “lifetime limit”. Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can’t tell that person that he’s used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won’t cover him any more. They can’t do this for lifetime spending, and they’re limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
• Kids can continue to be covered by their parents’ health insurance until they’re 26.
• No more “pre-existing conditions” for kids under the age of 19.
• Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans.
• People in a “Medicare Gap” get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend.
• Insurers can’t just drop customers once they get sick. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 )
• Insurers have to tell customers what they’re spending money on. (Instead of just “administrative fee”, they have to be more specific).
• Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they’re turned down.
• New ways to stop fraud are created.
• Medicare extends to smaller hospitals.
• Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.
• Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly.
• A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it:http://www.healthcare.gov/ ).
• A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness.
• A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they’re not price-gouging customers.
• A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn’t paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover.
• Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms.

8/1/2012

• Any health plans sold after this date must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge.

1/1/2013

• If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%). Edit: To address those who take issue with the word “tiny”, a change of 0.9% is relatively tiny. Any look at how taxes have fluctuated over the years will reveal that a change of less than one percent is miniscule, especially when we’re talking about people in the top 5% of earners.

1/1/2014

This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.

• No more “pre-existing conditions”. At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history.
• If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the “mandate” that people are talking about. Basically, it’s a trade-off for the “pre-existing conditions” bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can’t just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you’ll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you’re not buying insurance because you just can’t afford it.
• Insurers now can’t do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
• Make it so more poor people can get Medicaid by making the low-income cut-off higher.
• Small businesses get some tax credits for two years.
• Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty.
• Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers.
• Cut some Medicare spending
• Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them.
• Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable medical coverage.
• Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won’t be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen.
• A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.
• A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.
• A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they’ll get taxed.
• The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.

1/1/2015

• Doctors’ pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat. Edit: a_real_MD addresses questions regarding this one in far more detail and with far more expertise than I can offer in this post. If you’re looking for a more in-depth explanation of this one (as many of you are), I highly recommend you give his post a read.

1/1/2017

• If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers).

2018

• All health care plans must now cover preventative care (not just the new ones).
• A new tax on “Cadillac” health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage).

2020

• The elimination of the “Medicare gap”

.

Aaaaand that’s it right there.

The biggest thing opponents of the bill have against it is the mandate. They claim that it forces people to buy insurance, and forcing people to buy something is unconstitutional. Personally, I take the opposite view, as it’s not telling people to buy a specific thing, just to have a specific type of thing, just like a part of the money we pay in taxes pays for the police and firemen who protect us, this would have us paying to ensure doctors can treat us for illness and injury.

Plus, as previously mentioned, it’s necessary if you’re doing away with “pre-existing conditions” because otherwise no one would get insurance until they needed to use it, which defeats the purpose of insurance.

If you read through that whole thing, then you have a reasonable idea of what the health care law is going to do for people in this country. Fox News has immediately begun spinning Obama’s Supreme Court victory as a tax. How is it, however, a tax?

Essentially, it is the mandate. If you do not have health insurance and have enough money to afford it, you will have to pay a penalty fee (what is being called the tax) that comes down to about 1% of your total income. Approximately 6%  of the population will have to make a choice about buying health care or face the possibility of a penalty, as the demanding majority of the country already has some form of health coverage through traditional plans or senior plans.

That’s it. That’s the giant tax that will destroy the country, according to conservative rhetoric. Plans for health care will be provided through the state level, once the system gets rolling, and can then be adjusted according to the individual desires of each state. If you don’t have enough money to afford a plan, the government will help you. Pre-existing conditions are covered. College students and young adults can stay on the plans of their parents until they are 26. How are these changes perceived as bad?

Personally, I don’t see an argument against the law that makes sense to me. If you want to argue that the Federal government should not have this sort of control over the states, then I suggest you take up that argument with the majority of the (conservative) Supreme Court. I don’t mind this level of Federal control in my issues. By 2014 I will have to purchase my own type of health care, and I will gladly do so — it does not matter where it comes from, Federal or state.

I believe that health care should be mandatory. I believe that it should be provided to all. So, naturally, this ruling pleases me. I understand, though, that there are many who would disagree with this perceived encroachment of Socialism into the American political sphere. That’s fair. It is, at its core, an ideological issue that is harshly divisive. Informed dialogue and debate about the health care law is the best way to move forward into this election year.

Fox News and CNN are not good places to get news from. They are horrifically biased and do not impart intelligent messages to their respective audiences. The information that people need to know is information that can be found, but it must be found from original and non-biased sources (which are very few and far between). Whether, then, you agree with this ruling, find information about it on your own and draw your own conclusions. We are all intelligent enough to understand what our elected “leaders” understand in Washington. They aren’t special — they just have money.

This debate will be the focal point of the soon-to-come election, and both sides will talk around the issue, trying to display it as a “win” for their respective side. In my view, it is a win for the truly average American (who is not the 200,00+ a year American that this law taxes), and that is a good thing.

If I were a guessing man, I would guess that the health care ruling will, ultimately, favor Obama in November. Mitt Romney has the unfortunate history of creating the formula for “Obamacare” in his home state of Massachusetts. If the Liberal side of the argument frames it correctly, it is inescapable for Mitt Romney to dodge accusations of precedence.

Don’t let the rhetoric scare you. That’s all they want to do — scare you into preventing any type of change in the status quo. Get the facts.

Think for yourself.