April 23, 2019--Impeachment

And now the I-word.

It is clear from his report that Robert Mueller did not feel comfortable indicting Trump for obstruction of justice though the case for it in the report is much stronger than the uncertainty about its appropriateness or legality.

There is that Justice Department policy that states that sitting presidents cannot be indicted. It is a policy, not a law passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Count, a "policy," never challenged in any court. And not an ancient one at that. 

It does not go back to the Founders but rather was written in just 2000 at the end of the Clinton administration. After Watergate and the impeachment of Bill Clinton. After decades of special prosecutors.

In his peport Mueller presents an overwhelming case for obstruction of justice but punts what should be done about the evidence to Congress. In the initial instance to the House of Representatives which has the constitutional authority to initiate impeachments.

It should thus be clear, again from Mueller's mountain of evidence, that the House Judiciary Committee should get right to it.

But then there is politics.

It is evident that Nancy Pelosi is not enthusiastic about the prospect of Democrats taking responsibility for the process. 

She has laid out a number of thresholds that need to be crossed before she would allow that to happen. The one that is an easy deal-breaker is that impeachment hearings should not commence until the prospect for articles of impeachment are bipartisan. This means the Democrats should not move ahead until there is Republican support.

The likelihood of that, as my Aunt Madeline would say, is "zero, less than zero."

Unspoken but evident is the historical evidence that the Republicans, who controlled both the House and Senate in 1998 and moved aggressively to impeach Bill Clinton, lost seats in both and also the speakership when Newt Gingrich, who was held responsible for the debacle, was unceremoniously dumped. 

It is agreed that by taking a partisan approach to impeaching Clinton, Republicans paid a huge price. Pelosi wants to avoid a similar circumstance.

During the impeachment debate and subsequent trial in the Senate Clinton's popularity soared 10 percentage points. He was already quite popular but still his favorability numbers rose to about 70 percent. 

So Speaker Pelosi and the House senior leadership, including Congressman Jerry Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, are nervous about moving toward impeachment, fearing that Trump will see a similar bump up in popularity. His people and others will see this as an effort to overthrow the results of the 2016 presidential election and thus Democratic overreach.

To me, though, this is not a sufficient reason to avoid the issue of impeachment.

First, Trump is no Clinton. A majority of voters liked Clinton but fewer than 30 percent feel the same way about Trump. A poll from Monday morning showed Trump's approval numbers falling six points, down to 37 percent after the release of the Mueller report.

Then, though the economy is currently doing well for the top 10 percent, a large majority are not feeling as positively about their well being as they did in Clinton's day where not only were many millions of jobs created but the federal budget deficit was wiped out. In fact, there were annual surpluses.

Yet the concern about losing congressional seats is at the heart of the Democrats' political fears.

Then there are the profiles-in-courage constitutional reasons why it may be important to move to impeach Trump.

Our constitutional system is one where checks and balances define what is unique about our democracy. They are designed to check and balance any attempt by any of the three separate branches of our government to overwhelm and dominate the others.

Our system is designed to limit the power of Congress, the courts, and most potentially concerning the administration, the presidency.

We fought the Revolution to overthrow tyranny and wrote a constitution to marshal forces against that ever happening in the United States of America.

To impeach Trump would be a reminder about what ur Founders intended and what makes us special and kept us strong.

The Mueller report exposes Trump's disregard for constitutional government. It calls for the preeminent branch, Congress, to confront this. It reminds us that ours is a "constitutional system of checks and balances and the principal that no person is about the law." Including, especially, not the president.

I therefore say impeachment must be on the table.

January 31, 2017--Trump's Band of Amateurs

Much of Donald Trump's appeal has been his swaggering claim that because of his experience as a successful businessman he is not some over-experienced, incompetent government type.

The latter, by definition, are incompetent. Look at the mess professional politicians have made. It's time to turn government, whatever small part of it we will leave intact, over to people who know how to get things done. Like build a casino. We'll take our business acumen and apply it to the simple matter of running the government.

Thus, all the generals and CEO types Trump has selected to join him in running USA, Inc.

But so far, just 10 days into his presidency, Trump has already demonstrated that his boys don't in fact know how to get the job done.

Case in point this past weekend is the roll out of the new ban on Muslims from seven Middle Eastern countries. Including Iraq where people who risked their lives to help us fight ISIS are being turned back as they try to come to America.

The Trump immigration roll out was as bungled as the mocked Obama launch of Obamacare.

In Trump's case the immigration-ban mess is a result of intentional choices--rather than recruit and hire a few key staffers who know how things work at the senior executive level he selected the under-experienced Steven Bannon (now frighteningly a member of the National Security Council) and Stephen Miller to be in charge of White House policy.

Together they hatched this plan, opted not to consult with anyone in the Pentagon or Department of Homeland Security, so that Trump could sign the executive order with a ceremonial flourish, believing that all that was required to successfully implement this xenophobic and likely illegal policy was a stroke of the presidential pen.

Trump ran against elites of all kinds but primarily those in the media and government. There is a lot to find fault with in both places, but a certain amount of experience and, more important, competency counts when you want to get big things done in a complex and contested political environment. The Oval Office is not the set for The Apprentice or the Trump Organization.

Even incoming presidents such as Ronald Reagan who famously proclaimed government not the solution to problems but rather the cause of them, stocked his cabinet and the White House with solid citizens who knew how things work when dealing with Congress and the press.

This time around we have Bannon and Miller, neither one of whom has a clue about how things are accomplished in Washington. They clearly do not know that Reagan needed Tip O'Neill as a partner. Or that Bill Clinton had Newt Gingrich.

And, so it appears, neither does Trump who is now bumbling his way through the mess he and his amateur staff devised, including late last night firing his acting attorney general, evocative of Richard Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre

In fact, Trump's response has been so inept that he managed to make things worse. Now at least half the world hates us. All the product of a week's work.

As a result, he is quickly losing control of the agenda and has fewer and fewer Washington friends who he will need if he is to have a successful legislative agenda.

Which, in the end, may be a good things. The less of his agenda the better.

Stephen Miller (left) and Steven Bannon

August 2, 2016--Run the Government Like A Business?

A friend said, "It's just another Republican scheme designed to fool people. I'm tired of hearing about it."

"You mean those people who say they want to see the government run like a business?"

"Exactly. It's a crazy idea born out of frustration. Which I understand. The frustration. But businesses are all about making profits. Governments aren't."

"True," I said, "But let's take a step back to see what they really might mean. I agree with you on at least two counts--people are fed up with what they see to be failures of government to do legitimate and high quality work and, also, claim to want to see them work more like businesses to stick it to people like us who they feel are anti-business socialists. That we want a nanny state where government takes over roles more appropriately carried out by individuals, families, charities, and churches. Spending hard-earned taxpayers' money as if it's their own."

"Well put," my friend said, signaling to get his coffee cup refilled. "That's exactly what's going on. Can you imagine the country being run like a business? Especially by a Donald Trump who it appears more every day isn't really that good a businessman? Too much of what he apparently did was based more on scams than the result of more honest competition."

"Can we agree that as hard as it is to do, let's try to talk about this without making reference to him because, theoretically at least, it could be interesting to think about what a legitimate, big-time CEO from business might do as president. For example, Google's Eric Schmidt, General Dynamics CEO Phebe Novakovic, or Facebook's COO Sheryl Sandberg."

"Seeking to make a profit? That's the bottom line. Literally. And so . . . ?"

"Let's also try to deal with the profit business, to get it out of the way and hopefully, for the sake of this discussion, put it in a better context."

"Lot's of luck with that," he said.

"Of course, in capitalism, in business the focus is on P&L and at the end of the day making money. But more thoughtful people who think about what it would it be like to run the government more like a business know that though a government obviously wouldn't be seeking profits, it could benefit by running more according to well-established business methods and practices."

"Keep going," my friend said, seemingly at least a little interested. Or maybe the coffee was going down well.

"They look more at the methods than the bottom line. Accepting the fact that governments at their best also have bottom lines--not profits but the quality and efficiency of their services and even their goods. With goods usually thought of as all the manufactured goods the government procures (weapons systems front and center) and the services it supplies, among others, in education, health care, sponsored research, food and housing assistance, drug quality control, a strong military, intelligence gathering, and environmental protection."

"This is worth thinking about. I can see how certain so-called business practices might help with some of these."

"In big picture terms, without getting into too many specifics, one thing that frustrates business-inclined people is the fact that among government workers--appointed as well as Civil Service--there seems to be little value placed on efficiency or accountability. Both things at their best are characteristic of businesses. If you do well, you're rewarded with promotions, salary increases, and bonuses. If you do poorly, you're let go. There's a little of that in government but very little. Proponents of business applications to government work claim--and I think with some credibility when they're not just being mean spirited--that we have too many redundant and under-performing, unaccountable government workers with too many of the good ones discouraged by an indolent work culture and, as a consequence, either move on to private industry or essentially sit around counting the days until they can collect their pensions."

My friend said, "There is undoubtedly some truth to that, especially in regard to redundant and obsolete programs, but I think the extent of this is greatly exaggerated. Though I'll grant you there are too many $500 toilet seats."

"What's your evidence that the critique is exaggerated?"

"What's yours regarding the case about governmental incompetence and goldbricking?"

"Fair enough. This kind of argument on both sides is usually based on impression, anecdote, or ideology. So here are a couple of statistics--excluding the military, back in 1940, seven years after Roosevelt took over during the Great Depression and after there was a leap in the number on the federal payroll, there were about 700,000 federal workers. Now we have nearly 2.1 million. Also, the 1940 numbers are after years of new government hires to stimulate the economy. Back in 1930 there were only tens of thousand of government employees."

I paused to take a breath. My friend said, "I have to think about this. But don't forget that the country's population doubled during those years."

"It actually more than tripled. From about 100 million to more than 325 million. But I'll have to think about what you're saying. While doing so, while we're talking about the size of the government workforce, when was the last time--again applying business methods--that we took a truly objective look at the increased and expanded rolls government now plays? I can't believe that X percent of that couldn't be eliminated and in some cases even privatized. Any efficiently run business would do that, does that routinely. And by the way," I added, "shouldn't we liberals who see a large and essential role for government be the ones clamoring for efficiency and accountability? Why do we leave that political plum to conservatives?"

"I'm still stuck on profit being the bottom line for business and how that focus would be applied to not-for-profit government. Wouldn't it lead to harmful and cruel cuts to safety-net programs beyond what would, in pruning terms, be healthy or acceptable?"

"This is a necessary concern and caution. One final thing then," I said, "During the Bill Clinton years, especially during his second term, the government, after cutting 'welfare as we know it,' as they said, and other programs, plus of course a relatively booming economy, generated substantial budget surpluses. Trillions. Sort of like profits," I winked, "which, if George W. Bush hadn't taken us into war in Iraq and Afghanistan and had paid for his prescription drug plan and hadn't insisted on multi-trillion dollar tax cuts, that surplus would have eliminated the national debt in a decade. That sounds like good business practice to me."

"As I promised," my friend said, "I'll give this some more thought. That is, assuming you also agree to do so." He winked.

July 18, 2016--Vice President Mike Pence

If there are moderates flirting with the idea of voting for Donald Trump, take a close look at who's in his caboose and would be, if Trump were elected, one proverbial heartbeat away from the presidency.

Mike Pence.

A recent piece in the New York Times, "A Conservative Proudly Out of Step With His Times," summarizes some of Governor Pence's extremist views--

In 1998, long after it was indisputably proven that cigarette smoking causes cancer, Pence mocked the requirement to include warning labels on cigarette packs, calling it "hysteria." He wrote, "Time for a quick reality check--smoking doesn't kill." He has yet to retract this view.

During George W. Bush's first year in office, when Republicans overwhelmingly were supporting a Medicare prescription drug benefit and a major education reform program, No Child Left Behind, then congressman Pence voted against both.

He wears his fundamentalist beliefs on his sleeve, calling his Christian faith more important to him than even his family. And he is so abstemious that he once said, "to avoid temptation," he would only appear at an event where alcohol is served if his wife were present. (Trump, by the way is a teetotaler not for religious reasons but because his brother died of alcoholism.)

Pence opposes abortion under any and all circumstances, even if it has been determined that the fetus has Down syndrome.

He so passionately opposes same-sex rights that, as governor, last year he worked hard to get the Indiana legislature to pass a law that would make it easier for religious conservatives to refuse service to gay couples. A version of Jim Crow laws designed not to exclude African Americans but homosexuals.

It was only after there were threats from numerous national organizations and businesses that they would boycott Indiana that Pence reluctantly relented.

Though a President Trump would not agree with most of these views, there is always the danger that a Vice President Pence would at any moment wind up in the Oval Office as President Pence.

Even by comparison Newt Gingrich or Chris Christie would look good.

June 1, 2016--Slime

Is there a slimier American than Ken Starr, the independent federal counsel who snooped around in President Bill Clinton's dirty laundry between 1994 and 1998?

His investigation began relatively benignly. To dig for the truth or, failing that, the dirt surrounding Clinton's alleged sexual harassment years earlier of Paula Jones when he was governor of Arkansas.

When Starr couldn't come up with that much new to defame the president, he roamed around in other salacious matters such as the death, alleged murder of Vince Foster, until reports about Clinton's sexual escapades with White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, fell into his, shall we say, overheated lap.

With that he finally got lucky, hounding and embarrassing the president and finally getting him to perjure himself when he denied having "sexual relations with that woman. Miss Lewinsky." The so-called "Starr Report," copies of which were gobbled up by a panting public that wanted to know all the seamy details about Lewinsky's thongs, Clinton's anatomy, and the uses other than smoking them he found for cigars.

This and other goodies gave Republicans in Congress all they needed to impeach the president. That effort was led by the over-sexed Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, who at the time was cheating on his second wife, diddling a staffer who worked for him--now wife number three, Callista, best known for her signature helmet hairdo.

But it looks as if Ken the self-righteous pornographer is having second thoughts about how Clinton "was treated." The passive voice, was treated, not how he, Starr, and his staff of investigators did the mistreating.

In a recent article in the New York Times, all but overlooked as the current presidential campaign trundles on with its own almost daily dose of gossip and slander, Starr is quoted as expressing regret that Mr. Clinton's legacy has been tarnished because of "the unpleasantness." Unpleasantness!

There are certain tragic dimensions which we all lament. . . . That having been said, the idea of this redemptive process afterwards, we have certainly seen that powerfully in Mr. Clinton's post presidency.

What tortured language for such a perfect and fastidious a man. But at least he managed to squeeze out a few words of contrition. Even if not entirely his own. Though I assume he includes himself in the "we all lament."

Now, with delicious irony, he has more things to lament.

In the current case what went on pervasively among student athletes at Baylor University where he was, until he was demoted last week, the president.

A variety of reports revealed that during his tenure as Baylor CEO sexual harassment was rampant and, this is key, ignored, swept under the rug by President Starr and his administrative team.

Now we'll see how well he does as he undertakes his own redemptive process. Thus far we have heard nothing about that from him.

How wonderful sometimes things work out.

Baylor's Number One Fan

March 31, 2014--The Republican Clown Car

As the 2016 presidential election season begins to boil, with Republican pretenders genuflecting before $40-billionaire Sheldon Adelson this past weekend in Las Vegas, how is this cycle's version of the GOP candidate Clown Car shaping up?

Literally and figuratively, thus far the biggest clown of all is Chris (Sergeant Schultz) Christie. As the most moderate hopeful (for example, he is less ferociously opposed to same-sex marriage than the competition), he showed up in Las Vegas to kiss Adelson's ring. But as a moderate he is the least favorite among the Tea Party wing of the party.

The other moderate, Jeb Bush, slightly more acceptable, met with Adelson but out of sight of the media, slipping into one of Sheldon's casinos through a back door. There is, after all, a limit to how much public groveling a son of Barbara Bush is willing to do.

But, sadly for late night comedians, and me, there do not as yet appear to be any Donald (you're fired) Trumps, Herman (Pokemon) Cains or Michele (my husband's a great dancer) Bachmanns on the horizon to liven things up. Maybe Newt (and Callista) will give it one more try. He at least can be amusing. And Rand (named for Ayn) Paul, who appears routinely to wear clown makeup and has funny hair will at least liven things up when he will inevitably be asked why he as a physician and a self-declared Libertarian opposes abortions even in the case of rape or incest.

But if it's going to be Jeb versus Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio, I'll be sticking with Dancing With the Stars and The Colbert Report for my entertainment.

There is, though, hope that Ted Cruz will get in the race. He does a mean imitation of Winston Churchill ("We will never surrender") and is a dead ringer for Joe McCarthy. So he should be good for a few gaffs and laughs. And, I almost forgot, there's Rick (high executioner) Perry. He can be a hoot, especially if he's high on pain medication.

But if you're wondering why so many run for the presidency even though they know in their hearts they have no chance, think money.

There's a fortune to be made out there by speaking for cash at all sorts of untra-conservative political, religious, and corporate events. Being on the record opposing everything about Obama is all that's needed. And celebrity. That's where to Clown Car comes in. It makes you a household name and as your Q Scores go up, so does your speaker's fee.

Remember during the last campaign how Mitt Romney's fees for talks of this kind in 2012 yielded a neat $375K, which he famously shrugged off as "not very much"?

Before running, Rick Santorum made literally nothing. He struggled to put food on the table for his wife and dozens of children. But then after being in the lead for the nomination for a week or two he saw his average fee soar to $100,000 an appearance. This is not a typo.

How much do you think Herman Cain made before also being ahead of the pack for a week? As we would say in my old neighborhood, that would be bupkiss. He now gets $25K for 40 minutes of standup and singing.

And as soon as Michele Bachmann's congressional term is over in December, she is expected to be paid at least $25,000 a pop.

Even old Ron Paul whose shirts and suits look like they were bought off the rack at Kmart is paid a whopping $50K per appearance. No need to practice medicine anymore or live in Galveston.

Sarah Plain, who has made tens of millions since running with John McCain in 2008, pockets more than $100,000 to show up and entertain. I don't know what Tina Fey commands.

Then there are the right-wing media celebrities who live off this circus. If you think that Dick (Romney-in-a-landslide) Morris is working at the checkout counter in Publix, think again. He "earns" $15-$20,000 a rant by spreading paranoia that Barack Obama is about to launch black helicopters to round us up and take away our guns and other "freedoms."

Endnote--In fairness, I should mention that Hillary gets an obscene $200,000 to talk about everything except Benghazi.

And, on a recent Bill O'Reilly Show, Herman Cain hinted he is giving serious consideration to running again in 2016. Please God.

October 21, 2013--Ladies of Forest Trace: Senator Cruel

"I only have a minute. I'm watching C-Spanish." My 105-year-old mother was calling from Lauderhill.

I knew she meant C-SPAN. These days she's been glued to the TV. So much is going on in Washington.

"And it's making me depressed."

"What else is new," I said, "My recommendation is that you watch something entertaining. C-SPAN  and CNN and Fox News," the other things she watches, "will make you crazy."

"C-Spanish I also find entertaining. Most of what they say there is not to each other but to people watching on TV. Only when there is an important vote is anyone there. But it is making me crazy."

"So why . . ."

"Why? I may be on my last legs but I have my mind and things that I care about. That includes our country. America. You know I came here from a shtetl in Poland?"

"Of course I do. With your mother and sisters and brother. You've often told us that your father came to America first, saved enough money, and then sent for the rest of you."

"He would be turning over in his grave if he had a TV."

"Good that there aren't any where he is in Mount Lebanon."

She let that one pass and said, "One of the girls I have dinner with told me she read in the Yorker that that senator from Texas, Ted Cruel who filibustered for 20 hours against the president, Obamacare, said he is going to read it."

"I heard that too," I said, "He's finally going to read the bill itself. Someone passed the article along from the New Yorker--that's its name--about Senator Ted Cruz--that's his name."

"If you say so. But wouldn't you think before speaking 20 hours that he would do his homework? How can you talk for so many hours about something you don't know anything about?"

"They do it all the time. As you said, Mom, it about being entertaining. He is that--a political entertainer. Like Sarah Palin. By being so outspoken about Obamacare, even though like her he doesn't know anything about it, guarantees that he gets to be on television and as a result he has become a household name. He's been in the Senate for less than a year and is now more famous than others who have been there for decades. I bet more people know who he is than know about John McCain."

"And like that woman Palin he is probably making a lot of money and getting ready to run for president."

"I'm certain about that."

"Why do they hate him so much?"

"Senator Cruz? His constituents back in Texas still seem to like him even though he almost ruined our economy and failed to get Obamacare defunded."

"I meant the president. Obama. Why do they hate him so much?"

"What do you think?"

"On TV they should talk about that. About the real reasons."

"Which are?"

"It's not because he doesn't talk with Congress. He should do more of that. The way Reagan talked with that Tipper person and Clinton with that Grinch."

"Tip O'Neill and Newt Gingrich."

"Yes. Them. But that is not the real problem."

"Which is?"

"He's smarter than they are and enjoys pointing that out. As they say on TV, he's the adult."

"I agree with this too. He isn't good at the schmoozing and backslapping and never misses the opportunity to demonstrate he's the smartest person in the room."

"But he is the smartest person and that's part of the problem too. But only part."

"And the other part is?"

I think I knew where she was headed; but for someone her age, who can handle the challenge, it's important not to put words in her mouth or finish her thoughts. If she can it's more stimulating and even healthy for her to have to think things through. And the miracle is that she very much can.

"They don't talk about it enough."

"What's that?"

"His color."

"His color?"

"Because he's black. Millions can't stand that idea. That there is a black president. Not that they have a black president--but that there is a black president."

"I get the distinction."

"And one smarter than almost all the rest of us. That only makes it worse. If he was just ordinary that would be better for them because that's the way they think about black people. That they are inferior to white people. They even believe that black people who went to Columbia and Harvard are inferior to white people who just went to high school."

"I agree with that analysis."

"That's why Donald Trumpet wanted to see Obama's college transcript. He couldn't believe that there was a black person who could be better educated that he is. Even one who became president. Which, remember, he tried to do and made a fool of himself."

"I can't say I disagree with you."

"There's more."

"More what?"

"More to say about this. About white and black there are many complicated things. Remember, I'm almost old enough to remember slavery."

"That's an exaggeration. You only 105."

"And four months. Now like a baby I keep track of how old I am by counting months."

"But still . . ."

"It may have been 150 years ago when it ended but with something this terrible it takes longer than that for all whites and blacks to get over the cruelty and the family memories. Remember Bessie Cross, who worked for us? Who took care of you when I was teaching? Her grandfather was a slave and told her all the stories. And she told her son, Henry, who lived with us for awhile and was like an older brother to you."

"I remember them both very well. But they protected me from that history. Henry never said anything about his great-grandfather."

"Bessie told me everything." I heard my mother sighing at the memory. "And she told me other things too."

"What where those?"

"About how she was raising Henry. She knew that there were still separate black and white worlds. This, remember was after the War. The 1940s."

"There was still official segregation," I said, "Jim Crow laws in the South and unofficial segregation in most of the North. Including in New York. And in Brooklyn where we lived. There were separate black neighborhoods and in my school, PS 244, there were no Negros. But what did Bessie say about raising Henry?"

"She was a very proud and fearless person. And she wanted her son to have a safe and successful life. What the times would allow. She did not want him to expect or demand more than what was possible. In her heart she knew this was not right, not the way for things to be, but she accepted them. Though they made her angry and she did things to protest. She was active in colored organizations."

"The NAACP?"

"Yes that. But there were problems, violence, lynching as Negroes after the War asked for, demanded their rights."

"I too am old enough to remember that."

"But like every other mother Bessie wanted to protect her son. Even if necessary from his own desire to want to live in the white world."

"That is sad to hear, but I understand."

"But she knew that was what he wanted. Not to be white but to have the same opportunities. And to have them he might need to study and work among white people. And to do that successfully he needed to behave in certain ways so as not to make things worse for himself because to live this way would be bad enough."

"Which meant?"

She whispered, "Often compromise."

I could hear my mother's labored breathing. Remembering this and those days was painful, but I didn't attempt to distract her. I knew it was important to her to finish what she had called to discuss and that she could handle the intensity of the recollected feelings.

"For Henry to stifle himself at times. Yes, do that if it was necessary. Remember when this was."

"I do. And now? You raised all of this when talking about Obama. Why so many hate him and how he reacts to that."

"He is not from Henry's generation, thank God, and he had a white mother, which made it additionally complicated for him to figure out who he is and what he wanted to be. He wrote about these things."

"In Dreams from My Father."

"So, do you think this puts more pressure on him about the right ways to behave among white people?"

"Say a little more about this."

"That what we see as his willingness to compromise, even when he may not have to, could be a problem that comes from the way he thinks about himself--I know he thinks about himself as black--and how he feels a black person should behave among white people."

"This is indeed very complicated and not easy to talk about. I think especially for white people. Even liberals. I don't expect to see this discussed on TV or written about in the newspapers.

"Like Bessie Cross taught Henry, does Obama see the need to compromise, to stifle himself as part of what is necessary for a black person to do to be successful among white people?"'

"Some would call this a race-identity issue."

"And maybe a problem."

"Maybe."

"So, they hate him because he is black--that needs to be said and exposed--but also maybe by some of his behavior as president we still see what remains of segregation and even slavery. That we have made many things better; but even when someone becomes President of the United States, someone who was elected and reelected both times by more than 50 percent, the pain remains. The wounds are still there."

"Could be," I said. "One thing I am sure about."

"What's that?"

"That hard as it is we need to talk about this."

"That would be good," my mother said. I could sense that she was exhausted and I didn't want any longer to keep her from lying down. "Even if everything I said is wrong."

May 17, 2013--My Medicare

Now, from firsthand experience, I understand what that woman was telling me back last spring at a Newt Gingrich rally at the Boca Raton Jewish Center.

We had gone there, not so much because we were thinking about supporting Newt--far from it--but out of prurient curiosity: we wanted to know what Jews in their right mind would support someone who would, if improbably elected, get us involved in a shooting war with Iran the day after being inaugurated. On second thought, maybe for some that's why they turned out to cheer for Gingrich.

Anyway, Newt and Callista were late and we had a chance to chat with some of those in attendance. Beside an overarching obsession about U.S. policy toward Israel (most wanted America to sign off on anything Prime Minister Netanyahu deemed necessary to defend the state of Israel), beyond that was concern about our debt and what they saw to be excessive government spending.

"Just what would you do to cut spending?" Rona asked a woman of at least 80 whose St. John jacket was festooned with Gingrich buttons. "Cut defense?" She shook her head. "Veterans' benefits?" More head shaking. "How about medical research?"

"Absolutely not that," she said.

"So what's left? Maybe Medicare? On that we're spending $800 million a year. More than on defense."

"That's the last thing to cut."

"But isn't Medicare socialized medicine and doesn't it contribute more to the deficit than anything else?"

With this her face became so red that it overwhelmed her makeup and caused me to fear she would soon be in need of medical attention. "I don't want them to put their hands on my Medicare."

"But . . . "

"Don't 'but' me dear. But on the other hand," she growled, pointing at Rona, "they could cut your Medicare."

"That about summed it up," Rona said later, as we drove home. "They want to cut the federal budget but not anything that they feel they're entitled to."

"But it's OK to cut health care for people your age, which, by the way, also includes their children and grandchildren."

"I don't get it, but sad to say I do."

Well, earlier this week I had my first direct experience with Medicare. And, I confess, though I had my doubts about what it would be like--spoiled and used to high-quality private care, I suspected I'd be treated like a patient in a clinic--it was amazing and, like her, I don't want anyone putting their hands on my Medicare.

My first stop was with the orthopedic surgeon. Fifteen years ago he performed orthoscopic surgery on a torn meniscus in my left knee. Recently, I have been having similar symptoms in my other knee and thought I probably would need a similar procedure.

When I called to enquire about an appointment and told his assistant I was now old enough to be covered by Medicare, I was surprised and pleased to learn that Dr. Delany accepts it. To tell the truth I didn't know exactly what that meant; but since he had done such good work on me in the past and was still highly regarded, I said I would like to see him, thinking whatever it cost me out-of-pocket, as the insurers put it, I could fortunately afford it and I did want to benefit by his expertise.

Remarkably he remembered me, or at least my knees, and after catching up about what we had both been up to for more than a decade, he examined me and took five or six X-rays. From that, he suspected I again likely needed meniscus work, but to know for certain I had to have an MRI.

His assistant made an appointment for me for later in the day and when I asked what I needed to do to settle my bill, she said, "Nothing," that I was fully covered by Medicare.

Never before, with my gold-standard Aetna private insurance, had I seen a doctor or had tests done and not been expected to pay at least 20 percent of the cost associated with the treatment. So, to be sure I had not misunderstood, I asked again and again was assured that I owed nothing and would not receive any bills.

"But wait until I have the MRI," I said to the ever-skeptical Rona, who had accompanied me, "I bet it'll cost me at least $200. After all, they are sending me to one of those fancy Upper East Side imagining places where the MRI machines cost $2.0 million each."

And quite posh it turned out to be. And efficient too. I had a 1:30 appointment and by 2:00 was already being inserted into the MRI tube. They used some dreamy classical music to drown out the inevitable pounding; and, when I had my clothes back on and went up to find out what I owed, I again was told that Medicare would cover all of it, including the analysis of the MRI images.

So if I run into that Gingrich enthusiast next winter, I'll tell her about my experiences; but add that not only should Rona and her children be covered at current levels but that this government program should be universalized--Medicare for all--replacing Obamacare with this clearly fine single-payer system.