Slow recovery--but what else is new?

I'm going to take a break from the hurricane to focus on a criticism labeled at our President--that the recovery is our slowest ever.
And then I will assume that the person making this assertion means "since the 1950s."
One of the advantages of attending high schools based in three different states is that one never studies US history the same way.  When I was homeschooling through a program based out of Nebraska, I learned about the other side of FDR and the New Deal.  Now, the version of history most people learn is, "Stock market crashed in 1929, FDR became President in 1932, instituted the New Deal, and 'Happy Days Are Here Again'..."
Not quite.
If you look at Roosevelt's legacy at the end of his first term, you'll find that by 1936, he hadn't been that effective.  Most of his New Deal programs had been ruled unconstitutional by a reactionary and pro-business Supreme Court.  Roosevelt was so disgusted that he began referring to the Court as the "nine Old men," and vowed to add six Supreme Court justices that would be more sympathetic to his Keynesian ideals.  This almost cost him the election.
The fact is, we cannot get out of a deep economic hole overnight.  This has been the product of decades--not years, but decades--of bad decisions.  Even before the 2007 crash, the economy wasn't doing that well.  A housing bubble and concomitant job shortage meant that people in their twenties were shut out of the housing market--and this was in 2003.  Easy credit in the 90s and early 2000s meant that the baby boomlet--the people now in their thirties, who should be the backbone of the economy--are in debt over their heads.  When I finished college, there were people with BA degrees working at Target and Starbucks--and that was over a decade ago.  Cuts in education funding mean that a high school diploma is no guarantee of functional literacy.
What has Obama done?
His stimulus programs in 2009 floated money to the middle classes--which stimulated some growth in an economy that was flatlining.  His GM bailout was structured so that the funds would go to reopening plants rather than CEO bonuses--unlike the 2008 TARP bailouts, which he had nothing to do with (he had not taken the office of President when it was signed, and he had already resigned his Senate seat).  His policies on helping former students get out from under their student loans have helped lower the amount of personal debt that many now carry.
Are we back to normal?  No.  Is it a start?  Yes.  Could we have expected more?  Possibly.  Can Romney do better?  I doubt it.
Tifrosh Min Hatzibur endorses Obama for President in 2012.

The second debate--oil

Enough people have made fun of the "binders full of women" comment in the second Presidential debate that I don't see the need to join in.  (Personally, my favorite moment was when the moderators backed up Obama's version of history surrounding the reporting of the Libya embassy bombing--but no one else noticed.)
I'd like to talk about oil.
Former Gov. Romney (why address him by an honorific he no longer holds?) mentioned that Obama has decreased the amount of domestic drilling for oil.  He then blames rising gas prices on this shortfall.
OK, any first-semester, (or even high school) economics student knows that a decrease in supply causes a rise in prices.  However, let's look at the "why" for a moment.
Oil drilling is not good for the environment.  Yes, going after oil domestically would solve a lot of problems (including decreasing the funding currently going to countries like Iran).  However, drilling can cause runoff, which destroys arable land.  Pipelines can leak.  And, let's not forget about the tanker explosion a couple of years ago that killed off wildlife and nearly destroyed the local economy of the Gulf Coast.  Oil is not something to fool around with.  And the "drill, baby, drill" philosophy may be good for our economy in the short-term, but has the potential to create more problems than it solves.

Capitalism and healthcare--a match NOT made in Heaven

Recently, there's been a lot of talk about how each candidate will handle healthcare.  Mitt Romney's plan is to let the market dictate healthcare costs.  This is not a good idea.
1. Unlike cars, timeshares, or even the Adam Smith standby of eggs, people do not buy increasing amounts of healthcare simply because there's a drop in price.  When was the last time a hospital offered a sale on casts and splints?  Or penicillin?  No facility would do it because IT DOESN'T WORK!  No one will line up to take advantage of such a discount.  People only buy healthcare as needed.  The only time affordability becomes an issue is when consumers delay or avoid buying necessary treatments because they can't afford it.  These non-consumers then face either a reduced quality of life, or they die.
2. Unlike food, clothing or housing, substituting cheaper forms of healthcare doesn't always work.  Can't afford a house?  Rent a smaller apartment.  It serves the same purpose.  Same thing with groceries.  If chicken is on sale this week, you'll buy it instead of beef.  Or, you'll buy eggs or beans.  However, there are few alternatives to open-heart surgery.  Even certain medications must be given in their brand-name form, as patients can be sensitive or allergic to an additive in the generic.
3. Market forces dictate that companies produce that which is the most profitable, not always the most necessary.  This explains why there are constantly new medications for acid-reflux disease, while cancer (less common but far more deadly) is still being treated with the same radiation and chemotherapy which have been used for decades despite their horrific and well-documented side effects.
4. Any market that exists outside of an economics textbook has a fair amount of collusion.  This can take many forms when it comes to healthcare, such as all health insurance companies fixing premiums while denying care for pre-existing conditions, to pharmaceutical companies paying their competitors to keep generic versions of newly off-patent medications off the market.  It's reprehensible, but it's all legal.
For a long time, we've let the market dictate healthcare, and the results are a mess.  It's time to investigate alternatives.

Politics in action, or women can vote too

I once read a book about women's history in which it stated that it was a common belief that ovulation was caused by orgasm.  Therefore, if a woman got pregnant and claimed that the child was a product of rape, her pregnancy could be used AGAINST her.  After all, she must have enjoyed it, or she would not have conceived.
Plus ca change...
Representative Todd Akin is still in the race for Missouri State Senator.  And his remarks on "women can't get pregnant from a legitimate rape" have left half the population legitimately incensed.  Uh, Todd?  Just a little reminder?  The Nineteenth Amendment, you know, the one that gives every adult with two X chromosomes the right to vote your sorry a** out of office, has been the law for the past 92 years.  And that little soundbite of yours will be all over state television, the Internet and social media from now until November.  As for your GOP cronies, they LIKE their jobs.  They would rather not alienate half (that's right HALF) their constituents by supporting you in this.  And those who do will also find themselves on the receiving end of the collective wrath of the women of this country.  A wrath which, in a civilized society, we express with votes.
See you in November!

In which we learn how badly Mitt Romney wants the presidency...

...turns out, not very badly at all.
He tapped Paul Ryan as his running mate.  The same Paul Ryan who wanted to dismantle Medicare.  OK, so this generation of seniors is safe--for now.  That means Queen Mom and Builder, both over 55 (and I won't say by how much) can collect their Medicare when they turn 65.  But what about everyone under 55?  As in me and practically everyone I know? 
Let's face it.  Private health insurance is not the easiest thing to get even under the best of circumstances.And seniors, facing both a lack of funds and serious health problems, are decidedly not in the best of circumstances.  Builder, for instance, has had five hernia surgeries, a tracheal stenosis, and a torn meniscus.  All of which would get him kicked off most private insurance plans as "pre-existing conditions." 
Sure, Obamacare has made it illegal for health insurers to kick people off for pre-existing conditions.  But how long will that last?
Of course, targeting Medicare is capital-S STUPID.  See, the older people are, the more likely they are to show up on Election Day.  AARP, who opposes any limitations on Medicare, will be running Ryan's little plan on TV from now until November.  And too many people got burned by that lovely little law known as Medicare Part-D, where you had to get your own prescription drug coverage.  Between private plan corruption, cut-off dates, and "donut holes," a whole lot of seniors were confused.  Try to privatize Medicare, and all you'll get is a lot of pissed-off baby boomers.
And then there are the swing voters.  Remember the McCain-Palin ticket?  McCain was a serious contender, the sort of Republican that was liberal enough to capture swing voters.  Then he chose Sarah Palin.  Within a few weeks, the swing voters shifted to Obama, and the McCain campaign became something of a joke.  Suddenly, McCain was a loose cannon who might not live out his term, leaving the country ruled by Madam "I can see Russia from my house."
Of course, Romney was in trouble already.  His ties to Bain Corporation, a company that laid off a ton of people, don't sit too well with many voters in a down market.  Neither do his offshore accounts.  I won't mention Sen. Reid's questions about Romney's tax returns, since I put them in the same category as the "birther" fuss four years ago.
Congratulations, Mr. President Obama.  Four more years!

But I'm the Democrat!

Recently, I had a discussion about the role that welfare payments plays in modern-day Orthodox life.  Apparently, some families start signing up for "programs" like Section 8 and food stamps before the ink is dry on their wedding pictures.  Some couples even go as far as not getting state marriage certificates.  That way, they can be "single mothers" legally.
The irony of course, is that many of these families will denigrate the "sch******s" who supposedly utilize these programs.  (For the record, the Boro Park WIC office has most of the minorities present BEHIND the desks.  The nice ladies with the shaitels and the designer strollers--are getting benefits.)  When questioned about this, the answer is always the same--"Why not use it?  It's there."
Simple.  These programs were designed to be TEMPORARY aid to people needing to stay on their feet during a financial crisis.  They were not meant to be a way of life.  Moreover, anyone with any pride would try to avoid these programs altogether, and, if forced on by necessity (it's a bad economy right now, and many people need these benefits to survive) try to get off of them as quickly as possible. 
For the record, before I was married, I worked full-time and lived on my paycheck.  Sort of.  If you call a converted shed for an apartment and a tin-can on wheels "living."  However, it never crossed my mind to attempt to even get food stamps.  Maybe I just had too much pride, but I would rather live within my means, even if it meant skipping the more than occasional meal, than accept government handouts.
The irony of course, is that many of those on these "programs" are dyed-in-the-wool Republicans.  However, I am a lifelong Democrat.

White people guilt

Recently, the Park Slope Co-Op held a vote on whether to ban products from Israel in their stores.  The initiative lost, 1000-650.  However, I have to wonder, why it seems that boycotting Israel has become a liberal cause.  Israel is both the only democracy and non-Muslim state in the Middle East.  It is one of the smallest countries by land mass in the Middle East, and welcomes people of all faiths.  It also has a very liberal policy WRT to the LGBT community (especially in a region where being LGBT can become a capital offense).  It also, until recently, had a fairly liberal policy on the role of women.  All of these are important liberal causes.  Many would say that it is anti-Semitism.  However, I think  it goes to another issue--one that I call "white people guilt."
The history of the United States is one that has not been kind to minorities.  Between slavery, Native American resettlement, internment of the Japanese during World War II, quotas designed to keep out non-Anglo immigrants, and Jim Crow laws, there are a lot of reasons for liberal Americans to feel guilty over the treatment of the underdog, especially if the underdog is not white.  Back when Israel first started, the Jews in the region were that oppressed minority.  Between the Holocaust in Europe, and various "gentleman's agreements" here in the States, Jews were easy to categorize as the underdog.  Put them on a sliver of land surrounded by people that want nothing more than to drive them into the sea, and they become more enticing.  After all, they didn't have a prayer.  Until they started fighting back and winning.  Suddenly, the entire dialogue shifted.  Instead of the poor, oppressed Jews, suddenly it was the poor, oppressed Palestinians.  And, as an added bonus, the Palestinians weren't white!  Think about it.  Most people who visualize Jews think of Eastern European Ashkenazim, who are fairly indistinguishable from the Caucasian ruling class.  The Sephardim of the Middle East (many of whom had to flee their native countries the minute Israel became a state) rarely register.  This makes the Palestinians the perfect target for anyone who has sympathies for an oppressed minority. 
The irony, of course, is that the Palestinians probably would not like many of the things their supporters like.