Mitt and Bain

There’s been a fair amount of ink and electrons expended in regards to the topic of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital. Most of it has been of the nature of a sporting activity, either “boo, vulture capitalist” or “yaay, job creator.” Although this vague attempt to envision the consequences of a candidate’s principles is theoretically a slight improvement on the “Horse Race Journalism” I railed against in a previous post, it continues the chattering class’s insistence on confusing labeling with rational analysis. Hence my surprise today to encounter a reference in a NY Times editorial today to an article actually looking deeper into the fortunes of 77 companies acquired by Bain Capital during Romney’s tenure. The article appeared in the Wall Street Journal 1/9/12.

Now, overall, Bain produced about $2.5 billion for its investors on about $1.1 billion invested. Ok, 250% is not a bad return compared with, say, the fraction of 1% I’m getting on my bank savings account now, but hey, I guess Mitt’s just a really good manager. But take a look at the specific gains. Not too surprisingly, 10 of the 77 deals produced over 70% of the gains (see figure). How gainful were these gains? Well, you can see that Bain invested $5.1 million in American Pad & Paper in ’92, took them public in ’96, and pocketed $102 million—a 20 fold return (2000%). Oh, and Bain made AP&P so profitable and successful that AP&P went bankrupt  4 years later, in 2000. Even better was Wesley Jessen VisionCare, which turned a $6.4 million investment in ’95 into a $302 million (47x) profit after going public in ’95.

Wall Street Journal, 1/9/2012

Wiley business strategies? Absolutely. I wish I made 250%, or 2000% or 4700% on my money—then I’d be rich and you all would have to listen to me (or at least run me for president). But is this investment success evidence that Mitt knows how to manage businesses out of a jam, solve the problems that are keeping them from being profitable? That’s the narrative the Republicans want, because that shows he’s the man to fix America’s problems, too. Well, let’s think about it. Take American Pad & Paper. How do you fix and manage your way to 2000% profit? Even if Mitt went in and found that Tom on the 3rd shift had mistaken the office supplies coming off the production line for scrap paper and was throwing them all out, you couldn’t make an extra $100 million. Not even if Mitt personally invented a new, cheaper glue for Post-it notes. Now I’m sure that many management improvements were made, but that is how you go to 20% profit, not 2000%—and fixing management problems doesn’t put you in bankruptcy a few years later. Without further digging into these private deals than even the WSJ did or could do, we can’t say for sure what happened (gee, how about that) but there doesn’t seem to be any way to avoid the conclusion that Mitt’s success was all due to leveraged buyouts and sucking money out of IPOs rather than any particular ability to run a business (other than a vulture capital business, which is what he should stick with). There is zero carry-over to managing the USA.

My Marriage is in Danger!

Yes it is. Ann Hathaway smiled and winked at me from the tv last week…least I’m pretty sure it was me. Who else could it have been? And now, my marriage is in danger because, when Ms. H. wants someone, she cannot be denied. Surely my wife will understand.

Of course my running off with Ann Hathaway is just a product of my fevered imagination, but it’s no more imaginary than the desperate fear-mongering conjured up in response to President Obama’s recent statement in support of gay marriage.

Now I’ve always found this right wing mouth-frothing puzzling. Although it’s pretty obvious how Ann Hathaway flirting with me could endanger my marriage, I just can’t come up with any causal chain, even a convoluted Rube Goldberg one, by which gay people marrying hurts my marriage (or me, or pretty much anyone or anything except maybe the jilted boy/girl friend in a gay love triangle). And the homophobes haven’t produced any rational argument about how gay marriage harms them either.

But you know, let’s leave that aside a moment. Convincing people that things they think are bad are not, in fact, bad is a nigh-unto impossible uphill slog. I mean, 50 years after Vatican II there are still some elderly Catholics who wont eat meat on Fridays, and the Pope himself said that it was ok. So let’s just for the sake of argument grant the bigots their prejudices and irrational beliefs; we’ll all suppose for a minute that gay marriage is in fact a Bad Idea (by which I mean all manner of things unhelpful, hurtful, unethical, immoral or just plain stupid—sort of like the Republican Party’s legislative agenda). Ok, fine. But what no one ever addresses is the question “What bad ideas need to be made illegal?” When does the state (whether as Big Brother or Nanny Mary Poppins) need to intervene and stop people from implementing Bad Ideas?

Well, the right-wingers knee jerk response would be “always!” If it’s a Bad Idea, it should be illegal! They think there’s a simple one-to-one correspondence: Bad Idea = Illegal. Off with their heads! Simple thoughts for simple minds, I guess. But a moment’s reflection generates a number of Bad Ideas that are not illegal (the list is enormous, so for the sake of space, I’ll leave out ones like unclogging your lawnmower while the engine is running, smoking in bed and buying at the top of the market, and stick to Bad Ideas that are also immoral).

Bad Ideas That Are Not Illegal

  • Having an affair
  • Cheating at cards
  • Being rude to your mom on Mother’s Day (or any day)
  • Bragging to friends about false accomplishments 
  • Ignoring your children

(and note that these are all Bad Ideas that cause some degree of harm to others not just oneself). I’m sure you can come up with others.

So it’s not enough for conservatives to say that gay marriage is “wrong,” they have to provide some rational arguments as to why this particular wrong thing needs to be forbidden by the power of The State, why 2 people who want only to commit themselves to a single life-partner, through sickness and health, richer and poorer, etc. etc. must be kept from doing so! And this argument has to be something more than “I don’t like it,” or “The invisible galactic overlord doesn’t like it.” So far I’ve heard nothing. Time to stop using the law to enforce bigotry and prejudice.

…Yeah, I’m the Taxman

Well, it’s that day again folks. The Republicans’ least favorite day of the year. Tax day. Not only do they have to pay money to the government (gasp), but, as impossible as it may sound, on this day their hypocrisy becomes even more exposed than usual. Tax day reminds everyone that these super-patriots, this love-it-or-leave-it, wave the red white and blue, God Bless America crowd are people who love their country so much they’ll do anything for it—except help pay for it. April 15 reminds everyone that the Republicans’ money aint where their mouth is, their bullshit walks while real patriots’ money talks.

To show where Republicans’ true allegiance lies (for those who still might have doubts), this week they appear ready to bring up H.R. 9, the Small Business Tax Cut Act which lets businesses deduct up to 20% of their income in 2012 (at a cost of $46 billion). Of course, in true Republican fashion, it’s set up so that nearly half the cut goes to benefit people making over $1 million/year, and over 80% to those making over $200,000—in other words, Republican donors.

So isn’t this going to help the economy? Well, it’ll help the economy of the well-to-do, but it wont help the economy of the country. In addition to worsening the deficit (hey, don’t Republicans think that’s supposed to be bad?) it wont help employment because cash availability is not the limiting factor for businesses right now, it’s lack of demand. Nick, a commenter to one of today’s NY Times editorials said it well:

I own a small business with 7 employees. Let me very clear – I have never made a hiring decision based on tax policy, and never will. It makes absolutely no sense. I hire the number of people I need to accomplish the work that needs to be done. No less, and no more. In other words, it is all driven by the demand for the goods and services my business provides…These Republicans who say that tax policy drives hiring decisions are either morons or bold faced liars, probably both…There is no tax policy in the world that would get me to hire more people than I need to meet the current demands of my business, and that is driven by my customers and their spending levels, not tax policy.

More money in the hands of the middle class is the only thing that will give a real economic recovery. The 1% spend a much lower proportion of their income on goods and services, and concentrating wealth in their hands only slows our climb out of our current hole. And what do they say is the first thing to do when you’re in a hole? Stop digging.

I know, we need LESS money!

The principles behind Paul Ryan’s recent budget proposal should be mandatory for personal finance too—at least for Republicans. Here’s the Cleaver family:

Ward: June, you know that cough I’ve been having?

June: You means the one that’s been leaving those nasty blood stains on the sheets? You ought to get that checked out, Ward.

Ward: I did. Doc Hibbert says I need x-rays and a CT scan!

June: So just do it, honey. Find out what it is.

Ward: Well there’s a little problem. We don’t have health insurance anymore. Mr. Burns decided our company’s profits weren’t high enough so he canceled health coverage. Now the hospital wont do anything unless I pay cash up front! And between our Middle-Eastern vacation cruise and buying that big pack of guard dogs, we’re in debt to our eyeballs. We can’t borrow another cent.

June: Come on, Ward, that cruise was fun (well except for the part when the Beaver fell off the mast and got a concussion) and we have to keep our home safe—the dogs are great at keeping the Mexican kids next door out of the yard. Wont your mom give us some money?

Ward: Now June, you know it takes everything she has to pay for her own rent and all her doctor visits.

June: So what are we going to do?

Ward: Well, I was looking at Paul Ryan’s budget proposal last night, and I realized we just have to do the same thing our Republican leaders suggest when the country doesn’t have enough money to pay its bills.

June: Invade someone? Well, I suppose we could use the dogs…

Ward: No! You know how the only answer to Obama’s deficit is to cut taxes?

June: Of course, dear.

Ward: Well, obviously then the answer to our family deficit is for us to cut our income! I’m going to ask Mr. Burns to immediately decrease my salary by 50%!

June: Oh, ok! So then we’ll qualify for the government Medicaid program! That’s my Ward, always one step ahead.

Ward: No, no! Newt says Medicaid is evil…besides, we’d still make too much to qualify.

June: So wait a minute. How does us taking in less money help the problem that we can’t afford to pay our bills?

Ward: It’s easy. Now, see, the way Paul Ryan explained it is my salary comes from Mr. Burns… So if I take less money from Mr. Burns, then he’ll have more!

June: Well, duh. And then we’ll have less and be in an even worse hole! How exactly does it help us to let Mr. Burns have more? He’s already the richest man in town.

Ward: Umm, let me think…It made sense when Paul explained it. Ah, it’s like this. Mr. Burns will have more money and then he’ll make a bigger factory and make even more money!

June: Ok…I’m waiting for the part where this helps the Cleaver household.

Ward: Well, if Mr. Burns makes enough money, then maybe someday he’ll give me back some of the pay cut I took! There, see!

June: So if Mr. Burns is feeling generous, someday years from now our income might just end up back where it started but minus the extra debt we need in the meantime to cover your salary cut (if we can borrow anything)? Hmm…Wouldn’t it be better just to ask Mr. Burns right now for a raise? Instead of a salary cut? I mean, you’re worth it, and we need the money to see about your chest problem now, not later. And don’t forget we have to take care of your mom.

Ward: Oh no, I wouldn’t dare ask for a raise. I couldn’t expect Mr. Burns to raise salaries. Then he wouldn’t have as much money. That wouldn’t be fair.

June: No, you’re right, that would make Mr. Burns very unhappy.  All right, go ahead with your salary cut. Mom probably doesn’t need all those doctor visits.  And since the Beaver hit his head, I’m sure he wont need college—maybe he can get a job mowing Mr. Burns’ lawn once the dogs finish chasing the Mexicans away. Plus, Rick Santorum does say that college is overrated, which he should know, since he went for so long. And let me take a look in the garage, there’re probably still a few things left to sell. Oh Ward, I’m so proud of you and Paul Ryan!

Children’s Right to Know Act

I love Republican euphemistic names for bills, don’t you? You know, like the “Healthy Forests Initiative” that encouraged logging in national forests. In Pennsylvania this week, we have the “Women’s Right to Know Act.” Now, from the title, you might think this has something to do with, say, women being entitled to know what salary men doing the same job make, or where their husbands really were when they went on that “Appalachian Trail hike.”  But of course, what this bill is really about is women’s “right to know” that anti-abortion legislators want to poke them in the privates with an ultrasound wand and then harangue and shame them about wanting an abortion.

So, in the same Republican spirit of limited government intervention and individual freedom (and carried out by forced mandates on private doctors), I propose the Children’s Right to Know Act. This legislation will require pediatricians to identify parents’ political leanings at all office visits of school-aged children. Children of Republican parents will be shown videos of people with no teeth living in trailers, soup kitchens, crowded prisons, oil-covered beaches, closed factories and collapsed bridges. It will end by the magic of technology with a shot of the child’s face (taken from her mandatory ID card) superimposed on that of a soldier in a squad attacking a group of dark-skinned people in a desert village. The pediatrician must then inform the children that these are the consequences of voting Republican. I mean, they have a right to know, don’t they?

Stop the Impostors!

The PA State Senate voted Wednesday to pass Republican-inspired House Bill 934, which requires all voters (not just first-time voters) to show approved photo ID at the polling place in order to be allowed to vote. This will clearly stop the horrible epidemic of people pretending to be their neighbors and sneaking in to vote for them. Ha! That’ll be a good trick on Porter, someone will come to the polling place, say they’re me and vote Republican! Of course, I’m one of the election inspectors who signs people in to vote (and matches their signature with the one in the log of registered voters) so that might not work too well. But they could pretend to be someone else in Chadds Ford—unless of course we knew the person, or the impostor was the wrong age or had the wrong signature. Impostor voting is the kind of thing that wouldn’t be very secret because it would be immediately apparent when the real person came in to vote. But I’ve never heard anyone describe this—not even the right wingers who rail about “voter fraud” (the issue there is registering voters).

 So what’s the deal with what appears to be a solution in search of a problem? Well the “problem” is pretty clear. Who doesn’t have photo ID? I mean, does anybody not have photo ID these days? Well, about 10-15% of the very youngest and the very oldest registered voters do not, and about 25% of the voting poor lack such ID. Except for the elderly, these people skew Democratic. If the Republicans can put up some barriers to them voting, they’ll get an edge. Huge difference? Not really, but when 51%-49% is considered a solid election victory, then a couple percent fewer Democratic votes is well worth gunning for.

Now the argument is that people who don’t have photo ID can go get a non-driver photo ID from the DMV. Of course if you don’t drive, getting to the DMV is your first issue. Then you need (per  http://www.dmv.com/pa/pennsylvania/apply-id-card) :

  • One form of acceptable identification (birth certificate with raised seal, valid passport, certificate of citizenship or naturalization)
  • 2 proofs of residency
  • Your social security card
  • $10

 Barrier to voting, anyone?

Bomb, Bomb Iran—another Middle East War

Here we go again. In a desperate bid to alienate the 9 remaining Muslims who don’t already hate the USA, the Republican candidates now seem to differ only on whether to bomb Iran right away or just real soon.

Now of course bombing is the Republican default solution for international problems, just like cutting taxes for the wealthy is their universal remedy for internal woes, so I can’t actually be surprised about these drumbeats. What would surprise me would be some discussion of the risks and benefits of the various geopolitical options.

I think we can agree that, all things being equal, Iran not having nukes is better than Iran having nukes. Religious nutcases with nuclear weapons make everyone nervous (an excellent reason to keep Rick Santorum out of the White House). But all things are rarely equal. So what do we risk by bombing or not bombing Iran?

The risks of bombing include

  • Immediate war—that might not even achieve its stated aims
  • Consolidation of the Iranian theocracy
  • Long-term polarization of the Muslim world against the USA

War: Bombing another country is of course an act of war and the Iranian rulers would be at significant risk if they didn’t respond. Likely retaliations would include missile strikes on Israel, terror attacks on US military and civilian targets around the world, and interference with oil shipments to the West. Israel thinks the missiles would kill “only” hundreds, which they would tolerate. Not sure how many terror bombings and increases in the price of gas the US would tolerate without escalation to strikes on Iranian military targets and even invasion. Furthermore, although it’s likely that bombing would slow the Iranian nuclear program, it’s unlikely that material damage could stop it. Israel’s hope (see NY Times op-ed by a former chief of Israeli military intelligence) is that an attack would deter Iran from further work on a nuclear capability. However, it’s equally arguable that they would consider an attack prima facie evidence that they need nuclear weapons and would double their efforts.

Theocracy: Enemies are a despot’s best friend. There’s nothing like an external threat to unite people behind a regime, however oppressive and incompetent (eg, 9/11 and G W Bush), and an actual war is even better. Who could fail to rally ’round the flag when bombs are falling? Right now, the Iranian theocracy is tottering, as last year’s near-revolution showed. However, an American and/or Israeli attack would confirm the mullahs’ fear mongering and lock them into power for another generation or more.

Polarization: The main problem with nuclear weapons is not other countries having them, it’s other countries using them. On us. The more the USA is viewed as the enemy, the more likely we are to come under attack, conventional or nuclear. One more war with a Muslim country would probably be one war too many for most Muslim nations, and the populist movements we have seen spring up in many places would likely turn anti-American. The biggest existential threat to the USA in the next half-century (aside from a far-right-wing revolution) is a global nuclear exchange against a united Muslim world. Right now, they are too fragmented, but given sufficient motivation, the Muslims might well come together—united to protect themselves against us. Note that the Muslim world is already completely polarized against Israel, so this element is a risk only for the USA.

 The risks of not bombing involve Iran developing nuclear weapons, leading to

  • Nuclear missile attack on Israel or nuclear terror attack on USA
  • Deterrence of Israeli and American interventions in the Middle East
  • More brazen conventional terror attacks on Israel

Nuclear Pearl Harbor: A surprise nuclear strike on Israel or the USA is the specter that is raised in public. Scary? Yes. Gonna happen? No. Not even close. The reason being that Iran would be turned into a glowing wasteland in retaliation. Just because they send a few people to blow themselves up in shopping centers doesn’t mean they’re willing to destroy their whole country. And they’re not going to gamble that a weapon donated to a terror group would not be connected to them. The reality is that Iran would join the same nuclear stand-off that has prevented nuclear war since 1945.

Deterrence of US and Israeli interventions: The USA and Israel would feel less confident about intervening (i.e. invading and bombing) countries tied to Iran—Lebanon and Syria, both of which have made trouble for Israel over the years. Israel wants to maintain a free hand to quash threats from these countries. This is almost certainly the main reason for Israel’s strong push for us not to interfere with (and preferably to help) a military strike on Iran.

Increased terror attacks on Israel: Tied to previous point. Iran might feel emboldened to support an increased level of terror attacks on Israel. However, for this to be true, it would have to be the case that Iran hasn’t gone beyond current levels for fear of Israeli nuclear retaliation. It’s not at all clear that Israel would launch a nuclear strike solely in response to terror attacks.

So, in total, I’d say the benefits to the USA are far outweighed by the risks. For Israel, the balance is more in favor of an attack, and that’s likely what Netanyahu will push for on his visit here next week. So is it American or Israeli interest that will drive American foreign policy this year? Let’s see what President Obama tells AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee, self-described on their website, http://aipac.org/, as “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby”) when he addresses their annual policy conference tomorrow. They’re pushing hard for unqualified US support of whatever Israel wants to do. What do you think will happen?

2012—Year of The Bible

Yes, folks, this is officially the Year of The Bible. That is, at least here in Pennsylvania, courtesy of a State House bill passed on Jan. 24…by a vote of 193-0. As reported in the Phila. Inquirer yesterday, the bill says there is “a national need to study and apply” scripture.

Well, you know how I always like to heed our state Republican overlords, so I dusted off the scripture and selected a couple passages to “study and apply.” Surely this will help me to achieve the proper Republican attitude—since the bill was sponsored by House representative, Republican Rick Saccone, R. Allegheny and given “non-controversial status” by House Speaker, Republican Sam Smith .

Proverbs 22:16, “He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich—both come to poverty.” Wait, I thought this was a good thing?? Maybe it just means that the poor don’t have enough money to be worth stealing. Yeah, that’s right. And of course they never heard of lobbyists back then—you’ve gotta give a little to get a little.

 Proverbs 31:8-9, “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”

Proverbs 29:7, “The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern.”

Deuteronomy 15:11, “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.”     

What’s with the darn poor people, already? They’re just the takers, not the makers.

Hebrews 13:5, “Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have.”

Matthew 19:21-22: “Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young [Republican] man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.” Jesus, WTF, man? Must be a typo or something. That sounds like some kind of socialist-commie welfare state.

 James 5:1-4, “Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.”     Of course those illegals who mow the lawns are crying. We’re sending their sorry butts back home! Ha.

 1 Timothy 6:4-11, “But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.”      I think this must just be addressed to the Hollywood elites, not the job creators. I mean, you can be godly and rich, right?

 Matthew 19:23-24, “Then Jesus said to his disciples, ‘I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Uh-oh. Maybe camels were smaller back then. Like, a whole lot smaller.

 Matthew 25:41-45, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.’”    Hey, Jesus, wasn’t me, man.

 Ezekiel 16:49, “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” Newt, Newt, is that you? But you’re a holy man. I’m confused.

Boy, these Bible passages aren’t helping me feel very Republican at all. Isn’t there something in there that’s a little more right wing? Oh, ok, here we go…

 Matthew 25:14-30, “For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”     Yeah man! Now the Bible’s talkin’ ! Cut taxes for the rich, fewer benefits (like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) for everyone else. And throw those foreign workers out into the darkness!

 1 Corinthians 10:24, “Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth.” Hoo boy, this is great! We should seek after the other guy’s money! I bet this is on the boardroom wall of Bain Capital. All right! That is what it means, isn’t it?

 Ecclesiastes 10:19, “A feast is made for laughter, and wine makes life merry, but money is the answer for everything.” At last! True Wisdom for the Republicans! The Bible clearly sums up the Republican platform in one line! Thanks, Bible.

Oh, and just forget about all those other passages about helping the poor. Those were all written long ago, way before there were such fine social safety nets as we have now. But in any case, just to be safe, maybe next year should be the year of Atlas Shrugged, rather than the Bible.

 What scripture passages do you suggest we study and apply?

No Blood for You

During my years as an ER doc, I had many occasions to take care of Jehovah’s Witness patients. These folks, of course, have a religious belief that getting a blood transfusion is an awful sin, and they would always make sure to tell me this whenever they came in. Most of the time it wasn’t an issue, because they just had the usual non-blood-requiring ER problems like heart attacks, sprained ankles, crabs, etc. But every once in a while, somebody would really need some blood, and they just weren’t going to go for it. They’d rather die, it was such a sin. Well, whatever. I’d explain why they needed a transfusion and what might happen if they didn’t get one, and move on with plan B—that’s plan B as in “give IV saline and cross my fingers” as opposed to Plan B the contraceptive product.

Yeah, contraception. This week the Catholics are all up in arms because apparently the businesses they run (such as hospitals, like St. Agnes, where I had my first ER job) have to make sure that the health insurance they provide employees meets certain basic requirements. Requirements that the government only has because sneaky CEOs would otherwise provide health “plans” with $$ saving limitations like, say, covering only one lung, or only diseases that were acquired from the Amish…within 12 hours of filing your claim…which must be handwritten in triplicate…in Urdu. One of the multitude of such government requirements is that the health plan cover contraception. Holy Water, Batman! Non-Catholic employees must be permitted to disobey Catholic dogma? What will the evil government think of next!?! (we know the Catholic employees would never avail themselves of contraceptive services, so it’s only the non-Catholics that are a concern).

But isn’t this impinging on the Catholic employers’ religious freedom? God, I hope so. But that’s just me—the right wingers and bible thumpers went nuts. They’ve been shouting “Freedom!” like Mel Gibson at the end of Braveheart. Got me to thinking, though. What if your CEO was a Jehovah’s Witness? Should he be able to forbid health insurance that covered blood transfusions? What if you worked for a Christian Scientist? They don’t believe in any medical treatment. Your health plan would be real cheap—say two prayers and call me in the morning (if you can).

But Rob, you want to make Catholic businesses provide health care that goes against their beliefs!

Actually, I don’t. Not for a moment. What I want is to get business out of the business of health insurance. It’s absurd that our health coverage (and all too often, lack thereof) depends on where we work and who we work for. Medicare for all.

I kind of see a win-win here, don’t you?

Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? Charity and Health Care

Well, the Komen Foundation, that darling of the gifting class and people who like pink, let out quite a loud, smelly one this week with their decision to stop donating to Planned Parenthood. The odor wafted quickly through the social media and rightly drew major attention to their leaders’ conservative agenda to keep women away from anyone who might at some time have spoken to someone about abortion.

The resultant shitstorm, and Komen’s turn-about have been amply documented, and I have nothing to add to the immediate story—beyond mentioning that most seem not to have noticed that Komen hasn’t said they will continue funding PP past their current pledge, just that they will let PP “apply” for further grants.

Here’s what nobody’s raised so far: This is what happens when you depend on private charities to provide basic human services! Private groups (eg, Komen, Planned Parenthood) by definition are not accountable to the public. Their aid can shift at the whim of the directors, members and donors of the group (case in point), and often comes with strings—religious ones with groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous and Salvation Army. And even with the most even-handed, right-minded (not right-winged), ecumenical groups, their ability to keep operating depends completely on their ability to continually attract voluntary donations. Hey—this is how you put on a community arts show or send the high-school band to march at Disney World. But it’s a completely bogus, finger-in-the-dike approach to providing fundamental human needs. Conservatives like to recount the all-too-numerous “success” stories of private charity, how somebody had cancer and lost their job and all their neighbors pitched in and had a bake sale or something to pay for the person’s chemo. Yaay. What happens if the neighbors don’t like you very much, or even know you at all? What if your neighbors are poor? If they’re tapped out from donating money to care for the 3 other people on the block who have cancer? These aren’t success stories, these are failure stories. Failure of our society as a whole to face up to its responsibilities and instead hope that somebody else will take care of the problem. Sick and can’t afford care? You can always beg on the street.