LyrArc Article Gist
Two law school professors at Fordham University, Kysar and Sugin, say the Republican tax bill is extreme because it was not based on working with Democrats. As a result not a single Democrat supported this tax legislation. The problem- when the Republicans lose their majority in Congress- a serious possibility after the loss in a Senate race in deep red state Alabama- the whole issue of tax legislation would come up again. This is not without precedent as the Democrats won the presidential election in 2008 and Republicans made a sweeping victory in Congress in 2010.This is why Senators Casey and Wyden (Democrats) and Orrin Hatch (Republican) head of the Finance Committee stated on the floor of the Senate on Dec. 19, 2017, that the next time and in future both parties need to engage in real discussion on taxes. The lack of serious discussion on the health care bill passed by Obama in 2008 has created some of the same problems today that this tax bill passed in a similar way without discussion with the other party is likely to face by 2019. No one needs to look further to realize that the political system is failing in its job of grappling and solving the nation's problems. Kysar and Sugin say this bill is like the 1981 tax cuts skewed towards high income Americans which failed to generate economic growth as intended an led to a swift reversal with tax increases in 1982 and years that followed in 1983, 1984. President Obama failed to address tax reform after appointing the Bowles Commission and not taking up its recommendations to reduce deductions. Another effort at changing the system was made without serious debate, a kind of Republican response to the way Democrats passed the Affordable Care healthcare bill in 2008. Real changes to update the tax laws may be put off till both parties can wrap their hands around the problem together. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
After a chemical attack by the Assad government in Syria in 2013 Trump urged president Obama not to make air strikes on Syrian government targets, saying jobs, healthcare and other priorities should be remembered. After the use of chemical weapons in April 2017 by the Syrian government and the outrage following media photographs of the men, women and children who suffered from the brutal attack, Trump had changed his mind. The graphic images led to a change of heart. President Trump said that "it was in the vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons." Reports on CNN state the president was offered two options to strike several airfields or one airfield near Homs in Syria, just before meeting China's president Xi Jinping. He chose the latter option and went on to his meeting with China's president. Pictures on the internet show Trump with key advisers, Mcmaster, Tillerson and others huddled together in a room at the Mar Lago resort following the strikes. It may be a decisive moment in the Syrian conflict as it was an expression of disapproval and action with the use of chemical weapons in any conflict. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the WSJ describes the sharp increase in premiums under the Affordable Care Act of president Obama. The average premium increase is about 24.2% according to a Barclay's analysis, and as high as 43.9% in states such as Illinois. Bill Clinton calls it the craziest thing with small business affected, and some premiums doubling. Of the 17 million people in the individual market eight million buy without subsidies. One in five enrollees cannot qualify for subsidies. Democrats say subsidies are too small. Hillary Clinton has proposed to have a Medicare "buy-in" for people ages 55-65, and a "public option" government run plan. Republicans want to rewrite the law. But this depends on which party wins the Senate, with the election in Missouri giving Democrats an opportunity to maintain a Senate majority.

LyrArc Article Gist
For years economists and finance people left this hidden and obscured, the common sense understanding that higher interest rates in an economy based on better education with investments in infrastructure and manufacturing as Biden has put in place today would actually stimulate the economy. Why? David Uberti rightly points out this is household wealth growing larger with investment in CD's and savings accounts, dividend paying stocks at higher interest rates. Consider this important fact -Americans have earned $3.7 trillion in the first quarter alone in interest and dividends. This is $770 billion larger than in 2019, according to Commerce Department. In the last quarter of 2023 Americans had the largest wealth ever held in stocks, real estate, and other assets such as pensions, according to the Federal Reserve. Charles Schwab of the brokerage company he founded in 1971 stated this as a major loss for the American people and the economy when zero interest rates were used to tackle the problems created by greed and poor behaviors of banks in the 2009 crisis, Schwab was talking about something real. Hit the country with war burdens for Middle East wars of Reagan, Bush, Obama and Trump by taking away funds from infrastructure and education, healthcare and you have two burdens -2009 financial crisis created by banks and wars that reduce the household wealth and the capacity of the American economy to grow and create needed jobs to reduce standard of life/quality of life in the US. A third burden fell heavily on pensioners and elderly depriving them of interest and dividends with zero interest rates that no economist wanted to talk about for 30 years including  the previous administrations since 1990.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The authors, Becker, Davis and Murphy, are from the University of Chicago. They point out that the uncertainty created by the Obama administration's programs including healthcare and social investments in education, energy conservation, and the desire to reduce carbon emissions, all tend to slow business expansion and investments to create jobs by putting additional costs on business. The expanding federal deficit and national debt also create additional uncertainty. Their point is that it was a mistake to start making major changes to transform the U.S. economy at this time, and that it would have been wiser to do these changes after the economy had recovered completely from the crisis. All efforts they say should have been concentrated on establishing conditions for a strong recovery. When combined with the lack of regulatory reforms to fix problems left behind from the crisis, and other failures, serious questions arise about how things will turn out in coming years. See Krugman- The Feeling of 1937, where Krugman takes this up from another angle, again with concerns about the future....

LyrArc Article Gist
Biden calls ending the war in Afghnistan a "wise decision" for the American people. He says in his foreign policy speech that "it is about ending an era of major military operations to remake other countries." A Pew Research poll shows 54% of American adults support the decision.  In a sense the decision had already been made. Biden cited the Doha agreement president Trump signed a year ago with Taliban that called for the release of 5000 Taliban prisoners which included most of the top commanders, and no agreement on the future of Afghanistan. The decision had come much earlier than that when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from the period of George Bush were rejected by the American people for the cost and lack of purpose during the presidential election of 2016. That period marked the rejection of policies set under Reagan, Bush and Obama for starting American involvement in the Iraq-Iran conflict first on one side and then on the other side. All the time precious resources that were needed for infrastructure and services in education and healthcare were diverted to these wars, impoverishing America and also Europe. Looking beyond the words thrown around for political advantage both Trump and Biden and the American people, had decided to put these wars behind them 5-10 years earlier. Biden said assertively that America had made a tragic wrong turn, that was all he could say about Reagan, Bush, Obama policy. In the meantime he stated something else was happening- the US was losing its position in the world by wasting its resources in these wars that do not serve the interests of America. "There is nothing China and Russia would want more in this competition than the US to be bogged down for another ten years in these wars."  Biden was saying that he had the courage and tenacity to make a decision that was the right one and a wise one for America against all the transient opinion of people who lacked a grasp of what was happening to the American people- the increasing impoverishing of America in both rural and urban areas. And a similar situation in Europe. It was time to take a new turn, close this chapter, and write a new one in American history, brighter and with new sense of hope. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The first presidential debate in Denver, Oct 3, 2012. For the first time Romney came out as a recent Republican governor of Massachusetts, the most liberal leaning state in the U.S. For a reason that remains a mystery, except that Romney had to shore up support with the conservative base of the Republican party, Romney did not aggressively adopt positions that would appeal to the vast majority of Americans- from people on foodstamps which he said in this debate had increased by millions under the Obama administration, working class Americans, ordinary Americans about to lose insurance with higher premium costs from the unending increase in the cost of healthcare, seniors on Social Security, workers insecure or losing jobs as the economy fails to recover, and young people who cannot find work. As governor of Massachusetts Romney had to be able to address the needs of different income groups, the middle class and working Americans, and his own father who is his role model was a governor of Michigan, a liberal leaning midwestern state with the largest number of autoworkers in the U.S. He asked Obama directly how he could have focussed on Obama care and passed it without a single Republican vote when 23 million Americans were out of work and the first priority should have been high unemployment. Obama responded by saying he would defend the middle class but did not say what he would do in the next 4 years that was different from the economic policies between 2004-2008. Romney made clear that he was not going to reduce taxes if it would increase the deficit even though Obama said Romney planned to increase taxes by $5 trillion and worsen the deficit. At one point Romney said looking at Obama that he could own a house, a plane, but could not own the facts....

LyrArc Article Gist
Seib points to the part of the president's inaugural speech that said action must be taken even if victories are partial, that the debates over the role of government could go on for all time, but action however imperfect needs to be taken in this time. There is a sure willingness to engage in more partisan fights with Republicans and a broader list of issues from climate change to immigration, gender equality and curbing guns. The diffusion of the pent up purposes- pentup by the first term economic and healthcare issues- and the short time during the second term of 2 years to accomplish this, adds to the urgency for the president Obama.

LyrArc Article Gist
The tough job President Obama faces as he faces opposition from politicians who have interests to protect, and healthcare businesses with interests to protect. The President has to come up with a plan that is deficit neutral, because financial markets could see a healthcare bill that further widens the deficit as a signal for higher interest rates that would deepen the recession. At the same time each of the three sources of revenue puts him at loggerheads with political leaders in Congress or groups with interests to protect. Limiting income tax deductions for high earners could raise $267 billion in 10 years. It would require taxpayers in the top tax brackets deduct their mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable donations, at the 28% tax rate instead of the 33% and 35% tax rates. The opposition is with democratic leaders that it would hurt charities, universities that depend on tax deductible donations, and taxpayers in high tax cities like New York city that are the home base of Democratic leaders. Yet only 1.4% of households would be affected says the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, says charitable giving would decrease by 2%. The other opposition on this comes from the preference of Senators Baucus and Grassley, who head the Senate Finance Committee, for tax increases or cost savings to come from the health sector. Specifically they want to see the value of workers' employer provided health benefits subject to income taxes. It is a situation in which every sensible person admits the need for healthcare reform and would see the current pace of healthcare costs as unsustainable and dangerous; and after that will just go back to his group and try to preserve as much of the status quo as possible, so as not to disturb by much the benefits or compensation they have secured from the system over the years. Then there are political leaders in Congress with their own preferences, and Congressmen who are the subject of heavy lobbying by these interests. The administration and the Presidents job is to navigate this stream with a workable deficit neutral plan, without any requirement for any group to make sacrifices, and in some situations even small sacrifices for the public interest. Would charitable institutions be hurt that much, what if charitable institutions were exempted, why would other interests the try to obtain the same exemption. Its like the unions trying to keep the old unsustainable goldplated healthcare and other benefits at GM even as the ship was going down. Taxing employer provided employee health benefits as income would raise $2.5 trillion over a decade. The opposition here is from unions which are a force in the Democratic party and which count tax free health benefits as a legacy of the labor movement. Employer provided health insurance covers 160 million American employed and their dependents under the age of 65, so it has a wide impact. Yet most economists favor ending the tax break. They say it mainly goes to upper income taxpayers, and discourages cost consciousness among consumers of health care, thus encouraging excessive spending and surging health care costs. Senior Obama advisors, Peter Orszag, the budget director, and economist Jason Furman favor this approach. So do Republicans in Congress. Senators Baucus and Grassley are not asking for the complete removal of the tax break, what they want to see is capping the value of benefits that go untaxed. If the tax-free limit is $13,000, a policy worth $15,000 would pay income taxes on $2000. A third spource is to spend less on Medicare. About two thirds of the $948 billion in savings Mr Obama has proposed over 10 years comes from a number of reductions in Medicare spending. $177 billion comes from insurance companies bidding for government reimbursements for offering private plans to seniors. $106 billion comes from cutting the subsidies to hospitals serving the uninsured as universal coverage should remove this need. And $110 billion in reduced payments to hospitals and doctors because of productivity gains. A range of industries insurance companies, hospitals, doctors drugmakers, nursing homes, home health care companies and medical device makers, all stand to lose from reduced payments from Medicare and Medicaid. And these groups with interests to protect are another factor in this process of working out a healthcare plan. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Washington Post survey of 1200 readers on how the Republican healthcare plan of Speaker Ryan and the House of Representatives looks to them, how it affects them in their lives. Here Somasekhar of the Post gives the stories of 5 Americans. Some see the prospect of losing their insurance under the Republican plan even as they reach an older age, others a smaller segment says the Post, whose premiums jumped under the Affordable Care Act say they faced high premiums and high deductibles. The Post says the large majority of opinions have expressed anxiety over the proposed Republican Ryan House plan for healthcare. One of them is an uninsured poor farmer, Mr. Woosley,  income about $18000 who gained benefit from expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act,  one Mr. Smith, 32 years, a personal injury attorney who faces paying $10,000 if he did not take insurance and $10,000 if he took insurance because of high premiums so a wash either way deciding to do without it, one a tech worker Mrs. Powers, 62 years, income $22,000 on year and $4000 the next, from middle class during the tech boom but facing fewer opportunities and uncertain income from part time work, hit by the deep recession facing fewer opportunities as she gets older and now the prospect of losing insurance without government subsidies, one who is from the middle class who sees little benefit from the Affordable Care Act and is forgoing insurance because of the high premiums yet faces a penalty for not being insured under the ACA, another Mr. Blanchard, 52 years, is from the middle class, a computer programmer who lost his job in downsizing, earns $100,000 as a consultant self-employed, pays $767 in premium a month and relies on the Affordable Care Act which helps him gain freedom from working at a company that could downsize,  another is a middle class programmer Mr Riffle,age 44, and his wife, who does not qualify for a subsidy with a $71,000 family salary from working 4 jobs between himself and his wife- this person finds it too expensive for his salary to buy insurance $900 a month and $14,000 deductible under the Affordable Care Act. His views are worth listening to as they go to the crux of the problem- he says he may not be any better with the Republican plan. He sees the real problem as the high cost of health care in the U.S. and the only way this can be fixed is for members of Congress to be asked to use the insurance exchanges they create. If this sample is representative it shows that there are real problems with both the Affordable Care Act and the Republican plan, that the high cost of health care the problem lurking behind every plan that does not squarely address this, and till that happens and members of Congress experience what ordinary people face, this problem can never by fully solved.   Woosley, Smith, Powers, Blanchard, Riffle, and their personal experience is at the crux of what is right and wrong  with the Affordable Care Act, and also with the new Republican plan of Speaker Ryan and the House of Representatives. For every Woosley, Powers and Blanchard who benefit, there is a Smith and a Riffle who are indifferent or are affected by the high cost under Affordable Care Act and the current system of medical care with its high cost. The Affordable Care Act does not  tackle high cost, for that to happen the culture in America that makes it possible and acceptable to charge high prices must change. Another problem apart from bringing health care costs is that any solution needs to have the whole country behind it. If the notion that all people are entitled to basic health care is to stand, the whole country needs to believe it as they do in countries like France, Britain, Germany and Japan. If this has to be made a workable proposition health care has to be offered at a price that makes this possible to achieve, and that idea also needs the deep and broad sense of support from the culture in America similar to that in these other countries. Until that happens politicians in America will get elected and turned out of office in turns on issues such as health care, based on which side they take and which problems they choose not to face squarely and responsibly. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
What is behind Pew Research Report finding showing an unacceptable concentration of wealth that endangers democracy. Higher income groups making $244,000 a year in 2024 gained 19 percentage points of the total US Household Income moving from 29% in 1970 to 48% in 2024. About 50% of the nation's income going to 20% of its people and most of that to 2%-5% of the people of the US. The gains meant loss of 17 of these percentage points for middle income households making $106,000 a year that went from 62% in 1970 to 43% in 2024. Another 2 percentage points was suffered by vulnerable Lower Income groups making $35,000 a year who owned 10% of US wealth in 1970 went down to 8%.  The problems of divisiveness in the Nation come from three distinct areas. First money for state financed education for all being put into wars in the Middle East from Reagan through Obama and Trump and some wasted through capital misallocation to low priority investment by faulty capital market allocation. Second the high cost of pharmaceuticals and healthcare putting a heavy burden on low income and middle income households making $35,000 or 106,000 a year. Third the neglect of manufacturing that cutoff the opportunities for middle and lower income households and their one chance to move up the ladder. And the parallel shift of resources to technology and financial sectors that created opportunities for a smaller group of immigrant and higher middle income households with these skills.  These are the sources of America's distress and each problem is being attacked at its source by president Biden- exit from Afghanistan, canceling student loans that are egregious and prevent the investment in education America needs, large sustained investment in manufacturing and new supply chains, antitrust action on tech monopolistic behaviour, redrawing the shape of America's pharmaceutical sector to provide access to medicine to all parts of the population.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive order of 2012, a group of immigrants brought to the country as children can have temporary status to stay and work in the U.S. In 2012 this was restricted to children brought in under the age of 16, with a maximum age of 30. The program was called "Dreamers." Under president Obama's executive order this will be changed to children brought in under the age of 18, with no maximum age. The number of immigrants goes up from 1.2 million in 2012 to 1.9 million with this particular change in 2014. A new group of parents of children who are citizens or legal residents residing in the U.S. for more than 5 years adds another 3.3 million to this number, with an additional 100,000 for parents of Dreamers. The total 1.9 million children and 3.4 million parents would be 5.3 million given new status to stay and work in the U.S. The 5.3 million will not be eligible for subsidies and for the Affordable Healthcare Act assistance. All will be required to pass security checks. This leaves about 6 million, including farm workers and other undocumented or illegal immigrants not touched by the new executive order. President Obama is expected to make the announcement of the executive order on Nov. 20, 2014, in Nevada, a state with a large Hispanic population. On the question of legal authority for the executive order, Prof. Stephen Yale-Loehr, an expert on immigration law at Cornell says the U.S. president does have broad authority to decide which group should get a reprieve from deportations. The decision to exclude benefits of government subsidies and subsidized healthcare was made to appeal to increased support of the American public for the executive order. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This article in the NYT provides a look at the features of the Republican House Health Care Plan- Both the Affordable Health Care Act and the House Plan provide incentives for buying insurance- the ACA bases these incentives on income levels whereas the House Plan does not provide additional help for low incomes or elderly. Incomes at $20,000 would see a loss greater than  $2000 under the House Plan and as many of the elderly poor living in high cost areas may not have the resources to make up for this loss of subisidies they may forgo buying insurance or have insurance coverage that protects only in a limited way. President Trump has given assurances that all will be covered. For people with incomes of $50,000 or $75000 the loss of $2000 subisidies would also have some impact. At larger incomes or the well to do the subsidies are not handed out under either plan. Under the ACA the emphasis was on income levels and high cost insurance areas the subsidies were greater, under the House Plan the subisidies would be higher for the elderly compared to the young but very low income levels are not given additional help.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Bob Kocher, special assistant to President Obama for healthcare policy in 2009-2010 describes how hospital mergers with the passage of the Obama Healthcare Law are not doing much to control health care costs in the U.S. This is contrary to what was expected during the policymaking in 2009. In 2015 there were 112 hospital mergers in the U.S.  He says smaller physician led health care organizations do better at taking steps to improve productivity, adopt technological improvements and control costs.

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president Obama's passive response in the handling of the NSA spying on the phones of world leaders including the president of Brazil and the chancellor of Germany comes under criticism in the U.S. The failure to provide adequate assurance- and take immediate action since the summer of 2013 when the first revelations of NSA spying were out- to regain trust of European and other leaders is seen as a weakness in leadership. With German presidential elections approaching German chancellor Merkel actually tried to tone down the initial uproar over NSA spying revelations in the summer of 2013. It was only after it was revealed in October 2013 that NSA had monitored Merkel's mobile phone did the chancellor make an issue of this and Obama could not respond to why no action had been taken since the summer and a complete review of NSA spy activities made by the President and advisors. Because world leaders are involved, and not just of allies but large emerging market nations such as Brazil, this becomes the personal responsibility of the U.S. president. Obama also comes under criticism for not responding to the failure of the healthcare website. This matter is of a different nature and could be handled by the President's Health and Human Services Secretary, Ms. Sibelius....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Republican House Health Care pLan in 2017 relies on tax credits of between $2000 and $4000 based on age. Under the Affordable Health Care Act the elderly poor in high cost insurance areas received additional help. These people would lose over $2000 per person and may forgo full coverage or coverage entirely under the Republican House Health Care Plan. A report by Standard & Poor's estimates about 2 to 4 million people who are in 50's and 60's not yet qualifying for Medicare might lose their coverage they now have under ACA. The Republican plan also gives incentives through tax credits higher for older people, $4000 for a 60 year ol and $2000 for a 25 year old. Under the ACA the insurers are not allowed to charge more than three times what is charged for younger people, under the Republican plan this goes up to five times. 

LyrArc Article Gist
Biden's very conservative choices for his cabinet which one British reader of The Times calls UK One Nation type choices. Many of the cabinet members could easily have served under a Republican administration before Trump or a Democratic administration in the tradition of Harry Truman in the 1950's. No members of the cabinet belong to the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.  A look at the Truman administration after 1950 shows John Wesley Snyder, who headed a bank in St Louis and worked for the Reconstruction Finance Corporation under Franklin Roosevelt performing a key role for integrating 8 million GI soldiers into the economy, and implementing the Marshall Plan. A similar job awaits another banking official Janet Yellen in Biden's cabinet to keep people employed during the pandemic. Xavier Becerra, currently attorney general of California, and formerly Congressman for 24 years, who endorsed "medicare for all" is the new Health Secretary. He grew up in a one room apartment with his Mexican parents. Secretary of State goes to Anthony Blinken, Dean Acheson was in this role under Truman as the Cold War surged with the Berlin crisis and the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe. Today the challenges from Russia and China are taking the shape of a revival of tensions. George Marshall who led American forces in the war, was secretary of defense. This position is given to a soldier Gen. Lloyd Austin who led forces in the wars in the Middle East. This has the potential to deliver better results after the years when America veered off course under the administrations of Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Obama, following the Truman, Eisenhower administrations that setup the recovery after World War II. Today after the banking crisis of 2009, disastrous healthcare and infrastructure neglect in the U.S., followed by the pandemic, a recovery like the one after World War II is needed.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Experts say Chief Justice Roberts somehow found a path through in bridging the ideological divide and avoiding a show of partisanship in an election year. He somehow navigated and found a path through in his vote on the U.S. healthcare law letting it stand. Early on Roberts advocated "judicial modesty and humility" in jurisprudence. He compared the judge's role to that of an umpire in baseball during the 2005 confirmation hearings. The umpire would not pitch or bat, his job would be to call balls and strikes. It was seen as a determmined show of independence at a time when Justice Kennedy was seen as the swing vote. He has also earned political capital to be able to vote independently on other issues before the court instead of becoming embroiled in controversy about the role of the Court in overturning the work of Congress during the early part of the Obama administration.

LyrArc Article Gist
This story in the NYT describes how the flawed effort to pass the Republican healthcare bill or repeal the Affordable Care Act passed under president Obama failed after another effort. Many developments killed it. In the end the president lost interest, especially when he saw Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky go on talk shows on the weekend before its collapse to complain about the bill. Senator Collins of Maine was exasperated by the way the bill was being rushed through Congress, and she voiced her strong opinions about this by talking to people back home in Maine and sharing her conversations with the media. The bill pushed by Senator McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, imposed annual caps on Medicaid spending. And did this without any discussion, shutting out committee debate, any public discussion, or formal drafting. Once this process was set in motion in this way the Republican Senators formed camps. Senator Grassley of Iowa and Jerry Moran of Kansas, normally conservative moved to the moderate side. Moran held a town hall meeting covered in the NYT, where older people voiced their concerns. Most of the patient advocacy groups, the hospital groups such as the American Hospital Association, and other medical groups also opposed it.  After Senator McCain of Arizona said he could not return following a surgery in Phoenix, Senators Lee and Moran announced their opposition. With this the bill's support crumbled including any effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
There is a difference between the two candidiates. Most of Obama's tax policies are vague or not clear. This risks having higher taxes costing more than $648 billion over 10 years according to the Tax Policy Center. Taxpayers would shrink from 62% to 50% of households and there would be a hodge podge of tax credits. On energy McCain is pushing for nuclear energy and Obama is not giving this option enough importance. Obama would probably give more importance to higher taxes and redistribution of income and building infrastructure but sweeping changes in taxes increasing taxes for the middle class and having many tax credits is something that needs careful thought not to reverse the positive benefits of lower taxes and simpler tax code improvements of recent years. With Obama fuzzy on how much the tax system would be changed and its impact on the middle class and working class it will be a question on voter's minds. Because some way has to be found to pay for increased spending on infrastructure and healthcare. And though its largely accepted that something effective has to be done for health care for middle and working classes in the country its important that it be well thought out and free of special interests on one hand and free of political bias so that creative and useful solutions can be be made to take advantage of the unique situation the United States is in. Its not clear that the junior Senator has the experience and the understanding of this vast subject that would be needed to come up with the right system of health care for this country as any hastily put together solutions would not be likely to be the best ones....