Get E-Mail Updates

Two Kinds of Economic Recovery

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

I just watched President Obama's Indiana speech and town hall meeting from my hotel room in San Diego. I was watching on MSNBC, with Chris Matthews hosting and Pat Buchanan commenting. Pat (predictably) panned the speech, saying that people in Elkhart make RVs, and Obama's speech failed to explain how we'd get Americans to buy RVs again. His comment, it seems to me, perfectly epitomizes an adventure in missing the point, and perfectly articulates two kinds of economic recovery.

For many people, economic recovery means "getting back to where we were a few months or years ago." That means recovering our consumptive, greedy, unrestrained, undisciplined, irresponsible, and ecologically and socially unsustainable way of life.

I'd like to suggest another kind of recovery ... drawing from the world of addiction. When an addict gets into recovery, he doesn't want to go back and recover the "high" he had before, or even to recover the conditions he had before he began using drugs and alcohol. Instead, he wants to move forward to a new way of life -- a wiser way of life that takes into account his experience of addiction. He realizes that his addiction to drugs was a symptom of other deeper issues and diseases in his life ... unresolved pain or anger, the need to anesthetize painful emotions, lack of creativity in finding ways to feel happy and alive, unaddressed relational and spiritual deficits, lack of self-awareness, and so on.

Similarly, I'd like to suggest whenever we hear the word "recovery," we as a nation see it not as a call to get back our old addictive high, but rather as a call to face our corporate and personal addictions, including the following:

1. Our addiction to carbon. Fossil fuels are an addictive substance. They give us speed ... quick energy ... serving as a kind of cultural amphetamine. Meanwhile, they toxify our environment and throw the ecosystem in which we live into dangerous imbalance.

2. Our addiction to weapons. Weapons are one of the most addictive substances possible. They give us a feeling of well-being and security, removing our feeling of fear and anxiety, much like a barbiturate. But like a drug, they make us lazy and slow -- lazy and slow in the much more important work of relationship-building, justice, and peace-making, lazy in seeking the common good. And they plunge us into an addictive cycle, because if everyone in the world is getting more and more weapons, we aren't safer ... especially when increasing numbers of those weapons are nuclear, biological, and chemical.

3. Our addiction to fear. Religious leaders, media leaders, and political leaders have all discovered that you can raise quick votes, dollars, and members through the hallucinogenic stimulant of fear. By making straights afraid of gays, conservatives afraid of progressives, Christians and Jews afraid of Muslims, citizens afraid of immigrants, and vice versa, these leaders get a quick organizational high -- crack for their unity and morale. But the more fear you pump into your system, the more fear you have, and pretty soon, you go from being stimulated to paranoid, seeing things that aren't there and missing things that are. And soon after that, you move from paranoia to paralysis, leaving you in greater danger than ever.

4. Our addiction to stuff. Jesus said that a person's life doesn't consist in the abundance of her possessions. An economy that measures growth by the number of durable goods (resources) extracted from the environment and turned into non-durable goods that are bought, used, and then thrown away into a landfill ... that economy "succeeds" by turning goods into trash, and calling it success. That's not success. We need to imagine moving beyond an extractive, consumptive economy to a sustainable economy, and beyond a sustainable economy to a regenerative economy. I believe that in God's world, if billions can be made destroying the planet and exploiting people addictively, trillions can be made caring for the planet wisely and caring for people justly.

5. Our addiction to a single bottom line. During the president's town hall meeting, a man from Indiana told how he started a solar-powered attic fan company, and how he chose not to ship manufacturing overseas, but instead, to provide good employment for his neighbors. That meant, he said, that he had a little less cash in his pocket ... but wouldn't you agree that being a good neighbor has a value that can't be measured in dollars? The single bottom line of financial profit is addictive, and like an addiction, it destroys families and communities. We need to rediscover a triple bottom line -- financial sustainability, social sustainability, and economic sustainability. So we need a recovery of family values, and we also need a recovery of community values, and neighborly values, and ethical business values.

6. Our addiction to easy answers. "Government is the problem." "Just throw money at the problem." We can't afford our addiction to these kinds of easy ideological slogans and facile reactive fantasies in a complex, real world. Ideology is, in many ways, a drug that substitutes the quick high of unthinking reaction for the hard work of acquiring wisdom.

So ... maybe we can sabotage our addictive tendencies by letting the word "recovery" have a meaning that wakes us up rather than drugs us into the comfortable, dreamy, half-awareness in which we have lived for too long. That's my hope and prayer. (For more on this, see my book Everything Must Change.)

Brian McLarenBrian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) is a speaker and author, most recently of Everything Must Change and Finding Our Way Again.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: BuckeyeDon

02-12-2009 @ 11:19am

Well, Lord_Voldemort, I have to wonder which viewpoint will be regarded as loopy one hundred years from now.

The carbon economy is doomed. Of course McLaren doesn't know what will replace it--nobody does. But it will be replaced, one way or another. The earth itself is crying out. The only thing we know now is that we must put our minds together and work for solutions.

And yes, maybe it will mean a lowering of our standard of living. Moving from an exploitative, consumer economy to one based on stewardship and conservation might force some people to forgo their Hummers--even their RVs.

Forward-looking people are often thought of as mad by their contemporaries. But history often demonstrates that that they, of all people, were really the most sane.

by: Common Loon

02-11-2009 @ 8:56pm

A very partisan piece as usual from McLaren (with the obligatory book promo), but he does make some valid points.

1) We should not expect (or desire) to return to the level of material prosperity we once enjoyed. We are reaping what we've sown.

2) On a detached philosophical level, it would certainly be nice to be free from our collective "addiction" to carbon, weapons, fear, possessions, money and political slogans. Sign me up for the 12-step program!

On a more practical level, however, McLaren offers little substance beyond the typical jabs at conservatives for their contribution to this mess (excessive military spending, de-regulated corporate greed, fear of non-WASPs, etc). When it comes to a discussion of progressive leadership and ideas, McLaren suddenly has nothing to remotely critical say.

How long can we keep looking back at the Bush years before we have to start being prophetic in the here and now? Even if you grant that Democratic Party control is the lesser of two evils, this should not be license for progressive and moderate Christians to give them a free pass on everything. Last I checked, right-wing Republicans don't have a monopoly on the use of fear, cheap slogans or military spending.

If McLaren is so concerned about addressing the complexities of the economic crisis with "the hard work of acquiring wisdom", surely an author as accomplished as he could have at least offered some ideas on how "trillions can be made caring for the planet wisely and caring for people justly." Apart from the stimulus package, where will this kind of money come from? How realistic is it to expect businesses to survive these days with a "triple bottom line - financial sustainability, social sustainability, and economic sustainability"?

Also, since America's "addiction to weapons" is high on his list, can we expect McLaren to use his influence to advocate against Obama's expensive Afghanistan war policy with even a fraction of his disdain for Bush's military strategy?

Whose Kingdom are we trying to build here?

by: BuckeyeDon

02-12-2009 @ 11:23am

"Whose Kingdom are we trying to build here?"

Indeed. That's the question McLaren is asking, buddy.

by: grafnagle

02-12-2009 @ 1:43am

I believe that the core addiction among Jim's list are numbers 4 and 5. They are what make all of us (CEO's, stockbrokers, auto repairmen, secretaries, writers

by: Common Loon

02-12-2009 @ 3:57pm

My point exactly. I would hope that McLaren is willing to critique the current administration when they don't live up to the ideals of God's Kingdom. So far, he still seems to write mostly about the GOP's failures and the Dems' bright spots. To be clear, I supported Obama too and I'm glad there's a new sheriff in town. My concern is that McLaren seems unable to untangle his allegiance to Obama from his allegiance to the non-partisan Prince of Peace.

If we as the Sojourners community hope to remain truly prophetic, we need to critique both the right and the left when they stray from the Kingdom values of peace and justice. Does the issue of the Afghanistan war not matter anymore now that Bush is out? Is FOCA in line with what we like to call "a consistent ethic of human life"? Just because Obama was the best person for the job doesn't mean we have to get behind all of his policies. Many progressives are unaware of his support for capital punishment for example.

After the last eight years of failed leadership, I understand how hard it is to resist the "victory lap" urge to take few more swipes at the GOP and cable's talking heads like Buchanan. They are easy to find fault with. But if "God is not a Republican or a Democrat," this should mean that followers of Christ will not be one-sided in speaking truth to power.

by: BuckeyeDon

02-14-2009 @ 1:34am

thecommonloon:
I apologize for not replying sooner to your comments. I got caught up in the Darwin's birthday thread and didn't see your reply right away.

You make some good points, and I thank you for your insights.

Blessings,
Don

by: BillSamuel

02-14-2009 @ 12:19am

I agree, Brian. Glad to see you back to a prophetic voice, after supporting someone who wants to "defend our way of life" which is exactly all the things you say. Since you campaigned for him, do you think you could talk to him about these things? The pro-consumerism, pro-militarism policies of Obama are a true disaster. He doesn't seem to have a clue as to the real problems, but is willing to mortgage the future in a futile attempt to protect the paradigms that you so eloquently tore down in Everything Must Change.

by: BuckeyeDon

02-12-2009 @ 11:19am

Well, Lord_Voldemort, I have to wonder which viewpoint will be regarded as loopy one hundred years from now.

The carbon economy is doomed. Of course McLaren doesn't know what will replace it--nobody does. But it will be replaced, one way or another. The earth itself is crying out. The only thing we know now is that we must put our minds together and work for solutions.

And yes, maybe it will mean a lowering of our standard of living. Moving from an exploitative, consumer economy to one based on stewardship and conservation might force some people to forgo their Hummers--even their RVs.

Forward-looking people are often thought of as mad by their contemporaries. But history often demonstrates that that they, of all people, were really the most sane.

by: Common Loon

02-11-2009 @ 8:56pm

A very partisan piece as usual from McLaren (with the obligatory book promo), but he does make some valid points.

1) We should not expect (or desire) to return to the level of material prosperity we once enjoyed. We are reaping what we've sown.

2) On a detached philosophical level, it would certainly be nice to be free from our collective "addiction" to carbon, weapons, fear, possessions, money and political slogans. Sign me up for the 12-step program!

On a more practical level, however, McLaren offers little substance beyond the typical jabs at conservatives for their contribution to this mess (excessive military spending, de-regulated corporate greed, fear of non-WASPs, etc). When it comes to a discussion of progressive leadership and ideas, McLaren suddenly has nothing to remotely critical say.

How long can we keep looking back at the Bush years before we have to start being prophetic in the here and now? Even if you grant that Democratic Party control is the lesser of two evils, this should not be license for progressive and moderate Christians to give them a free pass on everything. Last I checked, right-wing Republicans don't have a monopoly on the use of fear, cheap slogans or military spending.

If McLaren is so concerned about addressing the complexities of the economic crisis with "the hard work of acquiring wisdom", surely an author as accomplished as he could have at least offered some ideas on how "trillions can be made caring for the planet wisely and caring for people justly." Apart from the stimulus package, where will this kind of money come from? How realistic is it to expect businesses to survive these days with a "triple bottom line - financial sustainability, social sustainability, and economic sustainability"?

Also, since America's "addiction to weapons" is high on his list, can we expect McLaren to use his influence to advocate against Obama's expensive Afghanistan war policy with even a fraction of his disdain for Bush's military strategy?

Whose Kingdom are we trying to build here?

by: BuckeyeDon

02-12-2009 @ 11:23am

"Whose Kingdom are we trying to build here?"

Indeed. That's the question McLaren is asking, buddy.

by: grafnagle

02-12-2009 @ 1:43am

I believe that the core addiction among Jim's list are numbers 4 and 5. They are what make all of us (CEO's, stockbrokers, auto repairmen, secretaries, writers

by: Common Loon

02-12-2009 @ 3:57pm

My point exactly. I would hope that McLaren is willing to critique the current administration when they don't live up to the ideals of God's Kingdom. So far, he still seems to write mostly about the GOP's failures and the Dems' bright spots. To be clear, I supported Obama too and I'm glad there's a new sheriff in town. My concern is that McLaren seems unable to untangle his allegiance to Obama from his allegiance to the non-partisan Prince of Peace.

If we as the Sojourners community hope to remain truly prophetic, we need to critique both the right and the left when they stray from the Kingdom values of peace and justice. Does the issue of the Afghanistan war not matter anymore now that Bush is out? Is FOCA in line with what we like to call "a consistent ethic of human life"? Just because Obama was the best person for the job doesn't mean we have to get behind all of his policies. Many progressives are unaware of his support for capital punishment for example.

After the last eight years of failed leadership, I understand how hard it is to resist the "victory lap" urge to take few more swipes at the GOP and cable's talking heads like Buchanan. They are easy to find fault with. But if "God is not a Republican or a Democrat," this should mean that followers of Christ will not be one-sided in speaking truth to power.

by: BuckeyeDon

02-14-2009 @ 1:34am

thecommonloon:
I apologize for not replying sooner to your comments. I got caught up in the Darwin's birthday thread and didn't see your reply right away.

You make some good points, and I thank you for your insights.

Blessings,
Don

by: BillSamuel

02-14-2009 @ 12:19am

I agree, Brian. Glad to see you back to a prophetic voice, after supporting someone who wants to "defend our way of life" which is exactly all the things you say. Since you campaigned for him, do you think you could talk to him about these things? The pro-consumerism, pro-militarism policies of Obama are a true disaster. He doesn't seem to have a clue as to the real problems, but is willing to mortgage the future in a futile attempt to protect the paradigms that you so eloquently tore down in Everything Must Change.

by: RV Reviews

03-04-2010 @ 2:03pm

it just takes a good citizzen for a peace living...

by: RV

03-01-2010 @ 1:07pm

What are your thought's on the recent Health Care Summit?

by: jrz715

04-02-2009 @ 5:19pm

"6. Our addiction to easy answers. "Government is the problem." "Just throw money at the problem." We can't afford our addiction to these kinds of easy ideological slogans and facile reactive fantasies in a complex, real world. Ideology is, in many ways, a drug that substitutes the quick high of unthinking reaction for the hard work of acquiring wisdom."

Thanks for saying this! I tend just hide behind my reactive fantasies. This is good stuff to consider.

However, I still do think we need to strive for ideals. I think Jesus commanded us too!

by: comment59

02-18-2009 @ 1:08am

In my ir-responsible age of learned behavior that gave rise to uttering and edifying what I'm against, I had to learn what I am for! Other than a thin lining of suggested cure in #5, these briefs appear to sieze and embrace an addiction of what the writter is against. After digesting this writing some on the band-wagon may extol "Yea! Right on" while other cycicism rings a loud "Whatever." Then pulling the covers over thier head they mutter "what can only one person do about it", while the rest of humankind is in the great divide struggling to makle sense of what just hit 'em. As an alternative to "for more on this, see my book....", another carbon burning, virgin material or post-consumer printed manifesto to add to the rest of my stuff, consider using your much-respected, widely-published, emergent voice ring out. In the same space used for this editorial, narrate what you are for. What are you for? When a problem emerges bring a solution or, at minimum, a suggestion. Nothing can withstand the power of collective thought by thinking minds. Oh yeah, confessional prayer helps, too.

by: RV Reviews

03-04-2010 @ 4:03pm

it just takes a good citizzen for a peace living...

by: kevin47

02-10-2009 @ 9:00pm

Well, the stimulus plan isn't going to do any of this either. But Buchanan is only saying that the stimulus won't do what our leaders say it is going to do, so I'm not sure how he's missing the point.

What's wrong with wanting an RV? Didn't some of the emergo superfriends recently take an RV trip around America to promote their books (which, presumably, were printed on paper)?

by: RV

03-18-2010 @ 6:40am

i hope it as easy how i read it...

by: derelicte

02-10-2009 @ 10:20pm

I completely agree with your point about politicians and our addiction to fear as a motivator for political action. This is exactly President Obama and the Congress' advertising campaign for the "stimulous" package is so scary. President Obama and Congress has done nothing over the past couple of days but talk about how dire the situation is and how imperative it is for us to pass this bloated bill, that nobody, including Democrats, thinks is actually going to stimulate the economy. That's not to say that the bill is not funding a number of worthy causes or that it might, long-term, help us "recover" in the sense which you're speaking of. But, the fact is that it is being billed as a "stimulus package" which will supposedly help reverse or ameliorate the current economic crisis, in the sense that you're criticizing. If it was being advertised as a proposal for long-term development and recovery, that'd be one thing. But it is being billed as a something that is necessary for the current moment and it is being steamrolled through Congress and onto the American people with one of its supporters' main arguments being that of fear. Fear that if we don't pass this hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars bill, the economy will collapse. I'd just like know if you consider the Left's rhetoric at this point a part of the same problem or if you're going to play favorites like you regularly accuse conservative Evangelicals of doing.

The thing that gets me is that I rarely see you or any of the other emergent leaders talk about the fear tactics exploited by the Left. The Right does it too and its not right, and its good that they be criticized. But somehow the Left never seems to get criticized on this blog, even in the ones that are trying to seem even-handed.

by: littleroundtop

02-10-2009 @ 11:04pm

My un political brother today emailed this to me from the East Coast . He has family in the medical care field . I also received the same email from a local political junkie in my state of Washington . This is wrong .

Stimulus Plan Will Ruin Your Health Care

Commentary by Betsy McCaughey

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039...

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama's stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, 600 page pdf version).

The bill's health rules will affect "every individual in the United States" (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and "guide" your doctor's decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis." According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and "learn to operate less like solo practitioners."

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

New Penalties

Hospitals and doctors that are not "meaningful users" of the new system will face penalties. "Meaningful user" isn't defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose "more stringent measures of meaningful use over time" (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the "tough" decisions elected politicians won't make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle's book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept "hopeless diagnoses" and "forgo experimental treatments," and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle's book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

Hidden Provisions

If the Obama administration's economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration's health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. "If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it," he said. "The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol."

More Scrutiny Needed

On Friday, President Obama called it "inexcusable and irresponsible" for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.

The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation's gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.

(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Betsy McCaughey at Betsymross@aol.com

Last Updated: February 9, 2009 00:01 EST

by: nuclearferret

02-10-2009 @ 11:22pm

Fear is the basis for demanding support of this bill, just as the $700B TARP Program shepherded by the Bush Administration and Nancy Pelosi last fall. Americans are threatened with utter demise, but if Congress simply passes over tons of borrowed money to the Treasury Department and now to the other departments as well, this at last will fix the problems you see.

by: gynexin

06-22-2011 @ 8:21pm

For Your Information...

Im inexperienced to blogging and recently found out about trackbacks, which I imagine is a way for me to acknowledge your site through a linkback through my blog. I found your internet site in the "currently buzzing" segment of one of the bookmarkin...

by: nissan italia

07-19-2011 @ 7:21am

juke nissan...

Awesome post, I've linked back to your blog here http://www.vwsuv.net/sites-we-like/ return the favor if you can, thanks!...

by: derelicte

02-11-2009 @ 12:17am

You're so right. Why didn't I see that. :)

by: Police Car Auctions

06-27-2011 @ 2:14pm

Police Car Auctions...

I was curious if you ever thought of changing the structure of your website? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of ...

by: Taylor Lautner Workout

05-15-2011 @ 3:03am

Taylor Lautner Workout...

Also you might wanna' check out this blog I found here......

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-11-2009 @ 4:04am

It is my understanding that the US government does not print money. Why are so many saying that Congress is doing this?. Don't the banks control the money flow/supply? I give you credit, nuclear, for saying that the money is borrowed. How is it that there is all this hoopla about spending money in the USA, but not an eyebat at hundreds of billions for the "War on Terror" exacerbated by tax cuts and tax stimuli by the Rs?

by: xfree9

02-11-2009 @ 5:06am

Are you serious? You think banks control the money supply? Banks haven't controlled the money supply since 1912 when the Federal Reserve was established.

Try: http://www.gettomontv.com/

Quick video about the money supply (and a plug for his book which was released today).

by: xfree9

02-11-2009 @ 5:08am

The depression of 1920 was short-lived precisely because the government did nothing. In its first year the recession was deeper than the first year of the Great Depression, but it quickly rebounded because the market corrected itself and was not propped up by the State who thought it expedient to enact policies that otherwise couldn't be passed.

I really wish we'd read our history. I really wish we'd learn our lessons from FDR and Hoover. Both were interventionists, and both exacerbated the depression.

by: jonabark

02-11-2009 @ 5:14am

Lotta RVs out there for sale cheap. Not likely to change. Making RVs definitely doesn't have a bright future and no political party will change that. I Don't see too many on the road either. I think those who live in Rvs are parking as often and as long as possible.

Brian is right and both parties need to wake up. Nobody out there is going to start lending so we can start spending. The banks are bankrupt. The economic house is collapsing like a big domino game and the days of happy motoring, malls and suburban sprawl are over.

I thought the bank and Insurance bailouts were wrong. The stimulus package could help but we need major cuts and the biggest expense is the bloated military budget. The urgency of time seems more real than the bank bailouts and the Republican adjustments are really lame. Rebuilding schools is a good idea and a good training ground for an energy efficient building program, will also reduce burdens on states and localities.

It is nice to have a president who can talk and who thinks in clusters of his own paragraphs rather than repeating the last 2 sentences beamed into his hearing device. I only wish he was the radical reformer he was accused of being.

by: Lord_Voldemort

02-11-2009 @ 2:30pm

On first glance, this article comes across as outrageously self-absorbed and smarmy. But on a second reading, it is remarkably honest and in its own way brave.

Not that I agree with a word of it: our use of oil doesn't flow from emotional neediness but from practical matters of chemistry and engineering -- distill oil into gasoline and what you have is a remarkably powerful fuel for running engines that can do useful work. One can argue about specific applications, like RVs, but if God forbid Brian McLaren should have a heart attack, a gasoline engine is -- still -- the best way to power a vehicle that will get him to the hospital quickly.

But at least McLaren is honest about what he wants, the end of the strong America of the 80s, 90s and the first few years of the 21st century, an America that had a potent military and a sophisticated market economy with energy drawn from fossil fuels. And if he is vague about just what he would replace it with, at least he doesn't pretend to be overly concerned with the prospect that material living standards might go down dramatically. What's important to him is that we be emotionally healthy.

Again, I think this is all pretty loopy. There's no guarantee that sudden poverty won't just drive us even crazier. But if Brian McLaren is a crackpot, at least he's an honest crackpot. His program, and the vision that motivates it, are right out in the open.

LV

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-11-2009 @ 2:35pm

Yes, I'm serious. Do you think the Federal Reserve is controlled or accountable to the U.S. government? Have you ever heard of "greenbacks"? Your statement about banks not controlling the money supply is both true and false. The Fed controls the levels by increasing or decreasing the deposits of the paper and coin generated by the mint. Thanks for the link.

by: jst1

05-11-2011 @ 5:42am

I like your post!
when you analyse you find so many peoples which are addicted to drugs.Many of them peoples not know when they get addicted. Because of taking medicines regularly without follow any precautions.
I want to introduce you all with a addictive drug named Barbiturate.
Barbiturates were first introduced for medical use in the early 1900s.
They are primarily used to treat insomnia and as a means for
preoperative sedation. They are also commonly used in the veterinary
field for anesthesia and euthanasia purposes. Barbiturates are
"downers" and suppress central nervous system activity. They have been
used as sedatives, hypnotics, anesthetics and anticonvulsants.
Barbiturates are classified as ultra-short, short, intermediate and
long-acting.
Alcohol and barbiturates are said to have similar effects. If someone
who is drunk on alcohol uses barbiturates, their intoxication will
increase as if they had consumed more alcohol. An overdose of alcohol
alone can kill a person, and adding barbiturates to a social drinking
session can turn it in a fatal drinking session. There have been
multiple accounts of people passing away in their sleep from using
barbiturate sleeping pills with alcohol instead of water. Individuals
with a drug addiction to barbiturates who additionally suffer from alcoholism are at great risk. Individuals who suffer from both conditions are urged to seek addiction treatment at a drug and alcohol rehab center.
If you're suffering from an addiction to barbiturates, you need to get help from a barbiturates addiction treatment program NOW. Your addiction is taking over your life, hurting the people you love as well as yourself.
Barbiturate Addiction

by: jonabark

02-11-2009 @ 4:05pm

Complete balderdash. Not short lived, very hard to recover. FDR's actions created significant job growth. both then and now laissez faire capitalism led to massive crashes. These ideas are literally bankrupt.

by: jeffp

02-11-2009 @ 4:51pm

This is a clear example of politics as usual times 10. Change We Can Believe In?

by: RV Reviews

03-04-2010 @ 2:03pm

it just takes a good citizzen for a peace living...

by: RV

03-01-2010 @ 1:07pm

What are your thought's on the recent Health Care Summit?

by: jrz715

04-02-2009 @ 5:19pm

"6. Our addiction to easy answers. "Government is the problem." "Just throw money at the problem." We can't afford our addiction to these kinds of easy ideological slogans and facile reactive fantasies in a complex, real world. Ideology is, in many ways, a drug that substitutes the quick high of unthinking reaction for the hard work of acquiring wisdom."

Thanks for saying this! I tend just hide behind my reactive fantasies. This is good stuff to consider.

However, I still do think we need to strive for ideals. I think Jesus commanded us too!

by: comment59

02-18-2009 @ 1:08am

In my ir-responsible age of learned behavior that gave rise to uttering and edifying what I'm against, I had to learn what I am for! Other than a thin lining of suggested cure in #5, these briefs appear to sieze and embrace an addiction of what the writter is against. After digesting this writing some on the band-wagon may extol "Yea! Right on" while other cycicism rings a loud "Whatever." Then pulling the covers over thier head they mutter "what can only one person do about it", while the rest of humankind is in the great divide struggling to makle sense of what just hit 'em. As an alternative to "for more on this, see my book....", another carbon burning, virgin material or post-consumer printed manifesto to add to the rest of my stuff, consider using your much-respected, widely-published, emergent voice ring out. In the same space used for this editorial, narrate what you are for. What are you for? When a problem emerges bring a solution or, at minimum, a suggestion. Nothing can withstand the power of collective thought by thinking minds. Oh yeah, confessional prayer helps, too.

by: kevin47

02-10-2009 @ 9:00pm

Well, the stimulus plan isn't going to do any of this either. But Buchanan is only saying that the stimulus won't do what our leaders say it is going to do, so I'm not sure how he's missing the point.

What's wrong with wanting an RV? Didn't some of the emergo superfriends recently take an RV trip around America to promote their books (which, presumably, were printed on paper)?

by: derelicte

02-10-2009 @ 10:20pm

I completely agree with your point about politicians and our addiction to fear as a motivator for political action. This is exactly President Obama and the Congress' advertising campaign for the "stimulous" package is so scary. President Obama and Congress has done nothing over the past couple of days but talk about how dire the situation is and how imperative it is for us to pass this bloated bill, that nobody, including Democrats, thinks is actually going to stimulate the economy. That's not to say that the bill is not funding a number of worthy causes or that it might, long-term, help us "recover" in the sense which you're speaking of. But, the fact is that it is being billed as a "stimulus package" which will supposedly help reverse or ameliorate the current economic crisis, in the sense that you're criticizing. If it was being advertised as a proposal for long-term development and recovery, that'd be one thing. But it is being billed as a something that is necessary for the current moment and it is being steamrolled through Congress and onto the American people with one of its supporters' main arguments being that of fear. Fear that if we don't pass this hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars bill, the economy will collapse. I'd just like know if you consider the Left's rhetoric at this point a part of the same problem or if you're going to play favorites like you regularly accuse conservative Evangelicals of doing.

The thing that gets me is that I rarely see you or any of the other emergent leaders talk about the fear tactics exploited by the Left. The Right does it too and its not right, and its good that they be criticized. But somehow the Left never seems to get criticized on this blog, even in the ones that are trying to seem even-handed.

by: littleroundtop

02-10-2009 @ 11:04pm

My un political brother today emailed this to me from the East Coast . He has family in the medical care field . I also received the same email from a local political junkie in my state of Washington . This is wrong .

Stimulus Plan Will Ruin Your Health Care

Commentary by Betsy McCaughey

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039...

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama's stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, 600 page pdf version).

The bill's health rules will affect "every individual in the United States" (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and "guide" your doctor's decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis." According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and "learn to operate less like solo practitioners."

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

New Penalties

Hospitals and doctors that are not "meaningful users" of the new system will face penalties. "Meaningful user" isn't defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose "more stringent measures of meaningful use over time" (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the "tough" decisions elected politicians won't make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle's book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept "hopeless diagnoses" and "forgo experimental treatments," and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle's book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

Hidden Provisions

If the Obama administration's economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration's health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. "If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it," he said. "The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol."

More Scrutiny Needed

On Friday, President Obama called it "inexcusable and irresponsible" for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.

The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation's gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.

(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Betsy McCaughey at Betsymross@aol.com

Last Updated: February 9, 2009 00:01 EST

by: nuclearferret

02-10-2009 @ 11:22pm

Fear is the basis for demanding support of this bill, just as the $700B TARP Program shepherded by the Bush Administration and Nancy Pelosi last fall. Americans are threatened with utter demise, but if Congress simply passes over tons of borrowed money to the Treasury Department and now to the other departments as well, this at last will fix the problems you see.

by: jacksonville nc jobs

07-05-2011 @ 8:37pm

Please Click Approve...

I hope you dont mind but I have went ahead and bookmarked your website on Digg website so my friends can see it too. Please approve this if this is ok with you....

by: jst1

05-11-2011 @ 5:42am

I like your post!
when you analyse you find so many peoples which are addicted to drugs.Many of them peoples not know when they get addicted. Because of taking medicines regularly without follow any precautions.
I want to introduce you all with a addictive drug named Barbiturate.
Barbiturates were first introduced for medical use in the early 1900s.
They are primarily used to treat insomnia and as a means for
preoperative sedation. They are also commonly used in the veterinary
field for anesthesia and euthanasia purposes. Barbiturates are
"downers" and suppress central nervous system activity. They have been
used as sedatives, hypnotics, anesthetics and anticonvulsants.
Barbiturates are classified as ultra-short, short, intermediate and
long-acting.
Alcohol and barbiturates are said to have similar effects. If someone
who is drunk on alcohol uses barbiturates, their intoxication will
increase as if they had consumed more alcohol. An overdose of alcohol
alone can kill a person, and adding barbiturates to a social drinking
session can turn it in a fatal drinking session. There have been
multiple accounts of people passing away in their sleep from using
barbiturate sleeping pills with alcohol instead of water. Individuals
with a drug addiction to barbiturates who additionally suffer from alcoholism are at great risk. Individuals who suffer from both conditions are urged to seek addiction treatment at a drug and alcohol rehab center.
If you're suffering from an addiction to barbiturates, you need to get help from a barbiturates addiction treatment program NOW. Your addiction is taking over your life, hurting the people you love as well as yourself.
Barbiturate Addiction

by: derelicte

02-11-2009 @ 12:17am

You're so right. Why didn't I see that. :)

by: Tap

08-14-2011 @ 1:40am

Madheadbat...

[

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: kevin47

02-10-2009 @ 9:00pm

Well, the stimulus plan isn't going to do any of this either. But Buchanan is only saying that the stimulus won't do what our leaders say it is going to do, so I'm not sure how he's missing the point.

What's wrong with wanting an RV? Didn't some of the emergo superfriends recently take an RV trip around America to promote their books (which, presumably, were printed on paper)?

by: kevin47

02-10-2009 @ 9:00pm

Well, the stimulus plan isn't going to do any of this either. But Buchanan is only saying that the stimulus won't do what our leaders say it is going to do, so I'm not sure how he's missing the point.

What's wrong with wanting an RV? Didn't some of the emergo superfriends recently take an RV trip around America to promote their books (which, presumably, were printed on paper)?

by: derelicte

02-10-2009 @ 10:20pm

I completely agree with your point about politicians and our addiction to fear as a motivator for political action. This is exactly President Obama and the Congress' advertising campaign for the "stimulous" package is so scary. President Obama and Congress has done nothing over the past couple of days but talk about how dire the situation is and how imperative it is for us to pass this bloated bill, that nobody, including Democrats, thinks is actually going to stimulate the economy. That's not to say that the bill is not funding a number of worthy causes or that it might, long-term, help us "recover" in the sense which you're speaking of. But, the fact is that it is being billed as a "stimulus package" which will supposedly help reverse or ameliorate the current economic crisis, in the sense that you're criticizing. If it was being advertised as a proposal for long-term development and recovery, that'd be one thing. But it is being billed as a something that is necessary for the current moment and it is being steamrolled through Congress and onto the American people with one of its supporters' main arguments being that of fear. Fear that if we don't pass this hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars bill, the economy will collapse. I'd just like know if you consider the Left's rhetoric at this point a part of the same problem or if you're going to play favorites like you regularly accuse conservative Evangelicals of doing.

The thing that gets me is that I rarely see you or any of the other emergent leaders talk about the fear tactics exploited by the Left. The Right does it too and its not right, and its good that they be criticized. But somehow the Left never seems to get criticized on this blog, even in the ones that are trying to seem even-handed.

by: derelicte

02-10-2009 @ 10:20pm

I completely agree with your point about politicians and our addiction to fear as a motivator for political action. This is exactly President Obama and the Congress' advertising campaign for the "stimulous" package is so scary. President Obama and Congress has done nothing over the past couple of days but talk about how dire the situation is and how imperative it is for us to pass this bloated bill, that nobody, including Democrats, thinks is actually going to stimulate the economy. That's not to say that the bill is not funding a number of worthy causes or that it might, long-term, help us "recover" in the sense which you're speaking of. But, the fact is that it is being billed as a "stimulus package" which will supposedly help reverse or ameliorate the current economic crisis, in the sense that you're criticizing. If it was being advertised as a proposal for long-term development and recovery, that'd be one thing. But it is being billed as a something that is necessary for the current moment and it is being steamrolled through Congress and onto the American people with one of its supporters' main arguments being that of fear. Fear that if we don't pass this hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars bill, the economy will collapse. I'd just like know if you consider the Left's rhetoric at this point a part of the same problem or if you're going to play favorites like you regularly accuse conservative Evangelicals of doing.

The thing that gets me is that I rarely see you or any of the other emergent leaders talk about the fear tactics exploited by the Left. The Right does it too and its not right, and its good that they be criticized. But somehow the Left never seems to get criticized on this blog, even in the ones that are trying to seem even-handed.

by: littleroundtop

02-10-2009 @ 11:04pm

My un political brother today emailed this to me from the East Coast . He has family in the medical care field . I also received the same email from a local political junkie in my state of Washington . This is wrong .

Stimulus Plan Will Ruin Your Health Care

Commentary by Betsy McCaughey

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039...

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama's stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, 600 page pdf version).

The bill's health rules will affect "every individual in the United States" (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and "guide" your doctor's decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis." According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and "learn to operate less like solo practitioners."

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

New Penalties

Hospitals and doctors that are not "meaningful users" of the new system will face penalties. "Meaningful user" isn't defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose "more stringent measures of meaningful use over time" (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the "tough" decisions elected politicians won't make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle's book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept "hopeless diagnoses" and "forgo experimental treatments," and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle's book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

Hidden Provisions

If the Obama administration's economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration's health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. "If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it," he said. "The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol."

More Scrutiny Needed

On Friday, President Obama called it "inexcusable and irresponsible" for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.

The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation's gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.

(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Betsy McCaughey at Betsymross@aol.com

Last Updated: February 9, 2009 00:01 EST

by: littleroundtop

02-10-2009 @ 11:04pm

My un political brother today emailed this to me from the East Coast . He has family in the medical care field . I also received the same email from a local political junkie in my state of Washington . This is wrong .

Stimulus Plan Will Ruin Your Health Care

Commentary by Betsy McCaughey

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039...

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama's stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, 600 page pdf version).

The bill's health rules will affect "every individual in the United States" (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and "guide" your doctor's decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis." According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and "learn to operate less like solo practitioners."

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

New Penalties

Hospitals and doctors that are not "meaningful users" of the new system will face penalties. "Meaningful user" isn't defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose "more stringent measures of meaningful use over time" (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the "tough" decisions elected politicians won't make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle's book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept "hopeless diagnoses" and "forgo experimental treatments," and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle's book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

Hidden Provisions

If the Obama administration's economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration's health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. "If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it," he said. "The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol."

More Scrutiny Needed

On Friday, President Obama called it "inexcusable and irresponsible" for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.

The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation's gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.

(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Betsy McCaughey at Betsymross@aol.com

Last Updated: February 9, 2009 00:01 EST

by: nuclearferret

02-10-2009 @ 11:22pm

Fear is the basis for demanding support of this bill, just as the $700B TARP Program shepherded by the Bush Administration and Nancy Pelosi last fall. Americans are threatened with utter demise, but if Congress simply passes over tons of borrowed money to the Treasury Department and now to the other departments as well, this at last will fix the problems you see.

by: nuclearferret

02-10-2009 @ 11:22pm

Fear is the basis for demanding support of this bill, just as the $700B TARP Program shepherded by the Bush Administration and Nancy Pelosi last fall. Americans are threatened with utter demise, but if Congress simply passes over tons of borrowed money to the Treasury Department and now to the other departments as well, this at last will fix the problems you see.

by: derelicte

02-11-2009 @ 12:17am

You're so right. Why didn't I see that. :)

by: derelicte

02-11-2009 @ 12:17am

You're so right. Why didn't I see that. :)

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-11-2009 @ 4:04am

It is my understanding that the US government does not print money. Why are so many saying that Congress is doing this?. Don't the banks control the money flow/supply? I give you credit, nuclear, for saying that the money is borrowed. How is it that there is all this hoopla about spending money in the USA, but not an eyebat at hundreds of billions for the "War on Terror" exacerbated by tax cuts and tax stimuli by the Rs?

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-11-2009 @ 4:04am

It is my understanding that the US government does not print money. Why are so many saying that Congress is doing this?. Don't the banks control the money flow/supply? I give you credit, nuclear, for saying that the money is borrowed. How is it that there is all this hoopla about spending money in the USA, but not an eyebat at hundreds of billions for the "War on Terror" exacerbated by tax cuts and tax stimuli by the Rs?

by: xfree9

02-11-2009 @ 5:06am

Are you serious? You think banks control the money supply? Banks haven't controlled the money supply since 1912 when the Federal Reserve was established.

Try: http://www.gettomontv.com/

Quick video about the money supply (and a plug for his book which was released today).

by: xfree9

02-11-2009 @ 5:06am

Are you serious? You think banks control the money supply? Banks haven't controlled the money supply since 1912 when the Federal Reserve was established.

Try: http://www.gettomontv.com/

Quick video about the money supply (and a plug for his book which was released today).

by: xfree9

02-11-2009 @ 5:08am

The depression of 1920 was short-lived precisely because the government did nothing. In its first year the recession was deeper than the first year of the Great Depression, but it quickly rebounded because the market corrected itself and was not propped up by the State who thought it expedient to enact policies that otherwise couldn't be passed.

I really wish we'd read our history. I really wish we'd learn our lessons from FDR and Hoover. Both were interventionists, and both exacerbated the depression.

by: xfree9

02-11-2009 @ 5:08am

The depression of 1920 was short-lived precisely because the government did nothing. In its first year the recession was deeper than the first year of the Great Depression, but it quickly rebounded because the market corrected itself and was not propped up by the State who thought it expedient to enact policies that otherwise couldn't be passed.

I really wish we'd read our history. I really wish we'd learn our lessons from FDR and Hoover. Both were interventionists, and both exacerbated the depression.

by: jonabark

02-11-2009 @ 5:14am

Lotta RVs out there for sale cheap. Not likely to change. Making RVs definitely doesn't have a bright future and no political party will change that. I Don't see too many on the road either. I think those who live in Rvs are parking as often and as long as possible.

Brian is right and both parties need to wake up. Nobody out there is going to start lending so we can start spending. The banks are bankrupt. The economic house is collapsing like a big domino game and the days of happy motoring, malls and suburban sprawl are over.

I thought the bank and Insurance bailouts were wrong. The stimulus package could help but we need major cuts and the biggest expense is the bloated military budget. The urgency of time seems more real than the bank bailouts and the Republican adjustments are really lame. Rebuilding schools is a good idea and a good training ground for an energy efficient building program, will also reduce burdens on states and localities.

It is nice to have a president who can talk and who thinks in clusters of his own paragraphs rather than repeating the last 2 sentences beamed into his hearing device. I only wish he was the radical reformer he was accused of being.

by: jonabark

02-11-2009 @ 5:14am

Lotta RVs out there for sale cheap. Not likely to change. Making RVs definitely doesn't have a bright future and no political party will change that. I Don't see too many on the road either. I think those who live in Rvs are parking as often and as long as possible.

Brian is right and both parties need to wake up. Nobody out there is going to start lending so we can start spending. The banks are bankrupt. The economic house is collapsing like a big domino game and the days of happy motoring, malls and suburban sprawl are over.

I thought the bank and Insurance bailouts were wrong. The stimulus package could help but we need major cuts and the biggest expense is the bloated military budget. The urgency of time seems more real than the bank bailouts and the Republican adjustments are really lame. Rebuilding schools is a good idea and a good training ground for an energy efficient building program, will also reduce burdens on states and localities.

It is nice to have a president who can talk and who thinks in clusters of his own paragraphs rather than repeating the last 2 sentences beamed into his hearing device. I only wish he was the radical reformer he was accused of being.

by: Lord_Voldemort

02-11-2009 @ 2:30pm

On first glance, this article comes across as outrageously self-absorbed and smarmy. But on a second reading, it is remarkably honest and in its own way brave.

Not that I agree with a word of it: our use of oil doesn't flow from emotional neediness but from practical matters of chemistry and engineering -- distill oil into gasoline and what you have is a remarkably powerful fuel for running engines that can do useful work. One can argue about specific applications, like RVs, but if God forbid Brian McLaren should have a heart attack, a gasoline engine is -- still -- the best way to power a vehicle that will get him to the hospital quickly.

But at least McLaren is honest about what he wants, the end of the strong America of the 80s, 90s and the first few years of the 21st century, an America that had a potent military and a sophisticated market economy with energy drawn from fossil fuels. And if he is vague about just what he would replace it with, at least he doesn't pretend to be overly concerned with the prospect that material living standards might go down dramatically. What's important to him is that we be emotionally healthy.

Again, I think this is all pretty loopy. There's no guarantee that sudden poverty won't just drive us even crazier. But if Brian McLaren is a crackpot, at least he's an honest crackpot. His program, and the vision that motivates it, are right out in the open.

LV

by: Lord_Voldemort

02-11-2009 @ 2:30pm

On first glance, this article comes across as outrageously self-absorbed and smarmy. But on a second reading, it is remarkably honest and in its own way brave.

Not that I agree with a word of it: our use of oil doesn't flow from emotional neediness but from practical matters of chemistry and engineering -- distill oil into gasoline and what you have is a remarkably powerful fuel for running engines that can do useful work. One can argue about specific applications, like RVs, but if God forbid Brian McLaren should have a heart attack, a gasoline engine is -- still -- the best way to power a vehicle that will get him to the hospital quickly.

But at least McLaren is honest about what he wants, the end of the strong America of the 80s, 90s and the first few years of the 21st century, an America that had a potent military and a sophisticated market economy with energy drawn from fossil fuels. And if he is vague about just what he would replace it with, at least he doesn't pretend to be overly concerned with the prospect that material living standards might go down dramatically. What's important to him is that we be emotionally healthy.

Again, I think this is all pretty loopy. There's no guarantee that sudden poverty won't just drive us even crazier. But if Brian McLaren is a crackpot, at least he's an honest crackpot. His program, and the vision that motivates it, are right out in the open.

LV

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-11-2009 @ 2:35pm

Yes, I'm serious. Do you think the Federal Reserve is controlled or accountable to the U.S. government? Have you ever heard of "greenbacks"? Your statement about banks not controlling the money supply is both true and false. The Fed controls the levels by increasing or decreasing the deposits of the paper and coin generated by the mint. Thanks for the link.

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-11-2009 @ 2:35pm

Yes, I'm serious. Do you think the Federal Reserve is controlled or accountable to the U.S. government? Have you ever heard of "greenbacks"? Your statement about banks not controlling the money supply is both true and false. The Fed controls the levels by increasing or decreasing the deposits of the paper and coin generated by the mint. Thanks for the link.

by: jonabark

02-11-2009 @ 4:05pm

Complete balderdash. Not short lived, very hard to recover. FDR's actions created significant job growth. both then and now laissez faire capitalism led to massive crashes. These ideas are literally bankrupt.

by: jonabark

02-11-2009 @ 4:05pm

Complete balderdash. Not short lived, very hard to recover. FDR's actions created significant job growth. both then and now laissez faire capitalism led to massive crashes. These ideas are literally bankrupt.

by: jeffp

02-11-2009 @ 4:51pm

This is a clear example of politics as usual times 10. Change We Can Believe In?

by: jeffp

02-11-2009 @ 4:51pm

This is a clear example of politics as usual times 10. Change We Can Believe In?

by: Common Loon

02-11-2009 @ 8:56pm

A very partisan piece as usual from McLaren (with the obligatory book promo), but he does make some valid points.

1) We should not expect (or desire) to return to the level of material prosperity we once enjoyed. We are reaping what we've sown.

2) On a detached philosophical level, it would certainly be nice to be free from our collective "addiction" to carbon, weapons, fear, possessions, money and political slogans. Sign me up for the 12-step program!

On a more practical level, however, McLaren offers little substance beyond the typical jabs at conservatives for their contribution to this mess (excessive military spending, de-regulated corporate greed, fear of non-WASPs, etc). When it comes to a discussion of progressive leadership and ideas, McLaren suddenly has nothing to remotely critical say.

How long can we keep looking back at the Bush years before we have to start being prophetic in the here and now? Even if you grant that Democratic Party control is the lesser of two evils, this should not be license for progressive and moderate Christians to give them a free pass on everything. Last I checked, right-wing Republicans don't have a monopoly on the use of fear, cheap slogans or military spending.

If McLaren is so concerned about addressing the complexities of the economic crisis with "the hard work of acquiring wisdom", surely an author as accomplished as he could have at least offered some ideas on how "trillions can be made caring for the planet wisely and caring for people justly." Apart from the stimulus package, where will this kind of money come from? How realistic is it to expect businesses to survive these days with a "triple bottom line - financial sustainability, social sustainability, and economic sustainability"?

Also, since America's "addiction to weapons" is high on his list, can we expect McLaren to use his influence to advocate against Obama's expensive Afghanistan war policy with even a fraction of his disdain for Bush's military strategy?

Whose Kingdom are we trying to build here?

by: Common Loon

02-11-2009 @ 8:56pm

A very partisan piece as usual from McLaren (with the obligatory book promo), but he does make some valid points.

1) We should not expect (or desire) to return to the level of material prosperity we once enjoyed. We are reaping what we've sown.

2) On a detached philosophical level, it would certainly be nice to be free from our collective "addiction" to carbon, weapons, fear, possessions, money and political slogans. Sign me up for the 12-step program!

On a more practical level, however, McLaren offers little substance beyond the typical jabs at conservatives for their contribution to this mess (excessive military spending, de-regulated corporate greed, fear of non-WASPs, etc). When it comes to a discussion of progressive leadership and ideas, McLaren suddenly has nothing to remotely critical say.

How long can we keep looking back at the Bush years before we have to start being prophetic in the here and now? Even if you grant that Democratic Party control is the lesser of two evils, this should not be license for progressive and moderate Christians to give them a free pass on everything. Last I checked, right-wing Republicans don't have a monopoly on the use of fear, cheap slogans or military spending.

If McLaren is so concerned about addressing the complexities of the economic crisis with "the hard work of acquiring wisdom", surely an author as accomplished as he could have at least offered some ideas on how "trillions can be made caring for the planet wisely and caring for people justly." Apart from the stimulus package, where will this kind of money come from? How realistic is it to expect businesses to survive these days with a "triple bottom line - financial sustainability, social sustainability, and economic sustainability"?

Also, since America's "addiction to weapons" is high on his list, can we expect McLaren to use his influence to advocate against Obama's expensive Afghanistan war policy with even a fraction of his disdain for Bush's military strategy?

Whose Kingdom are we trying to build here?

by: grafnagle

02-12-2009 @ 1:43am

I believe that the core addiction among Jim's list are numbers 4 and 5. They are what make all of us (CEO's, stockbrokers, auto repairmen, secretaries, writers

by: grafnagle

02-12-2009 @ 1:43am

I believe that the core addiction among Jim's list are numbers 4 and 5. They are what make all of us (CEO's, stockbrokers, auto repairmen, secretaries, writers

by: BuckeyeDon

02-12-2009 @ 11:19am

Well, Lord_Voldemort, I have to wonder which viewpoint will be regarded as loopy one hundred years from now.

The carbon economy is doomed. Of course McLaren doesn't know what will replace it--nobody does. But it will be replaced, one way or another. The earth itself is crying out. The only thing we know now is that we must put our minds together and work for solutions.

And yes, maybe it will mean a lowering of our standard of living. Moving from an exploitative, consumer economy to one based on stewardship and conservation might force some people to forgo their Hummers--even their RVs.

Forward-looking people are often thought of as mad by their contemporaries. But history often demonstrates that that they, of all people, were really the most sane.

by: BuckeyeDon

02-12-2009 @ 11:19am

Well, Lord_Voldemort, I have to wonder which viewpoint will be regarded as loopy one hundred years from now.

The carbon economy is doomed. Of course McLaren doesn't know what will replace it--nobody does. But it will be replaced, one way or another. The earth itself is crying out. The only thing we know now is that we must put our minds together and work for solutions.

And yes, maybe it will mean a lowering of our standard of living. Moving from an exploitative, consumer economy to one based on stewardship and conservation might force some people to forgo their Hummers--even their RVs.

Forward-looking people are often thought of as mad by their contemporaries. But history often demonstrates that that they, of all people, were really the most sane.

by: BuckeyeDon

02-12-2009 @ 11:23am

"Whose Kingdom are we trying to build here?"

Indeed. That's the question McLaren is asking, buddy.

by: BuckeyeDon

02-12-2009 @ 11:23am

"Whose Kingdom are we trying to build here?"

Indeed. That's the question McLaren is asking, buddy.

by: Common Loon

02-12-2009 @ 3:57pm

My point exactly. I would hope that McLaren is willing to critique the current administration when they don't live up to the ideals of God's Kingdom. So far, he still seems to write mostly about the GOP's failures and the Dems' bright spots. To be clear, I supported Obama too and I'm glad there's a new sheriff in town. My concern is that McLaren seems unable to untangle his allegiance to Obama from his allegiance to the non-partisan Prince of Peace.

If we as the Sojourners community hope to remain truly prophetic, we need to critique both the right and the left when they stray from the Kingdom values of peace and justice. Does the issue of the Afghanistan war not matter anymore now that Bush is out? Is FOCA in line with what we like to call "a consistent ethic of human life"? Just because Obama was the best person for the job doesn't mean we have to get behind all of his policies. Many progressives are unaware of his support for capital punishment for example.

After the last eight years of failed leadership, I understand how hard it is to resist the "victory lap" urge to take few more swipes at the GOP and cable's talking heads like Buchanan. They are easy to find fault with. But if "God is not a Republican or a Democrat," this should mean that followers of Christ will not be one-sided in speaking truth to power.

by: Common Loon

02-12-2009 @ 3:57pm

My point exactly. I would hope that McLaren is willing to critique the current administration when they don't live up to the ideals of God's Kingdom. So far, he still seems to write mostly about the GOP's failures and the Dems' bright spots. To be clear, I supported Obama too and I'm glad there's a new sheriff in town. My concern is that McLaren seems unable to untangle his allegiance to Obama from his allegiance to the non-partisan Prince of Peace.

If we as the Sojourners community hope to remain truly prophetic, we need to critique both the right and the left when they stray from the Kingdom values of peace and justice. Does the issue of the Afghanistan war not matter anymore now that Bush is out? Is FOCA in line with what we like to call "a consistent ethic of human life"? Just because Obama was the best person for the job doesn't mean we have to get behind all of his policies. Many progressives are unaware of his support for capital punishment for example.

After the last eight years of failed leadership, I understand how hard it is to resist the "victory lap" urge to take few more swipes at the GOP and cable's talking heads like Buchanan. They are easy to find fault with. But if "God is not a Republican or a Democrat," this should mean that followers of Christ will not be one-sided in speaking truth to power.

by: BillSamuel

02-14-2009 @ 12:19am

I agree, Brian. Glad to see you back to a prophetic voice, after supporting someone who wants to "defend our way of life" which is exactly all the things you say. Since you campaigned for him, do you think you could talk to him about these things? The pro-consumerism, pro-militarism policies of Obama are a true disaster. He doesn't seem to have a clue as to the real problems, but is willing to mortgage the future in a futile attempt to protect the paradigms that you so eloquently tore down in Everything Must Change.

by: BillSamuel

02-14-2009 @ 12:19am

I agree, Brian. Glad to see you back to a prophetic voice, after supporting someone who wants to "defend our way of life" which is exactly all the things you say. Since you campaigned for him, do you think you could talk to him about these things? The pro-consumerism, pro-militarism policies of Obama are a true disaster. He doesn't seem to have a clue as to the real problems, but is willing to mortgage the future in a futile attempt to protect the paradigms that you so eloquently tore down in Everything Must Change.

by: BuckeyeDon

02-14-2009 @ 1:34am

thecommonloon:
I apologize for not replying sooner to your comments. I got caught up in the Darwin's birthday thread and didn't see your reply right away.

You make some good points, and I thank you for your insights.

Blessings,
Don

by: BuckeyeDon

02-14-2009 @ 1:34am

thecommonloon:
I apologize for not replying sooner to your comments. I got caught up in the Darwin's birthday thread and didn't see your reply right away.

You make some good points, and I thank you for your insights.

Blessings,
Don

by: comment59

02-18-2009 @ 1:08am

In my ir-responsible age of learned behavior that gave rise to uttering and edifying what I'm against, I had to learn what I am for! Other than a thin lining of suggested cure in #5, these briefs appear to sieze and embrace an addiction of what the writter is against. After digesting this writing some on the band-wagon may extol "Yea! Right on" while other cycicism rings a loud "Whatever." Then pulling the covers over thier head they mutter "what can only one person do about it", while the rest of humankind is in the great divide struggling to makle sense of what just hit 'em. As an alternative to "for more on this, see my book....", another carbon burning, virgin material or post-consumer printed manifesto to add to the rest of my stuff, consider using your much-respected, widely-published, emergent voice ring out. In the same space used for this editorial, narrate what you are for. What are you for? When a problem emerges bring a solution or, at minimum, a suggestion. Nothing can withstand the power of collective thought by thinking minds. Oh yeah, confessional prayer helps, too.

by: comment59

02-18-2009 @ 1:08am

In my ir-responsible age of learned behavior that gave rise to uttering and edifying what I'm against, I had to learn what I am for! Other than a thin lining of suggested cure in #5, these briefs appear to sieze and embrace an addiction of what the writter is against. After digesting this writing some on the band-wagon may extol "Yea! Right on" while other cycicism rings a loud "Whatever." Then pulling the covers over thier head they mutter "what can only one person do about it", while the rest of humankind is in the great divide struggling to makle sense of what just hit 'em. As an alternative to "for more on this, see my book....", another carbon burning, virgin material or post-consumer printed manifesto to add to the rest of my stuff, consider using your much-respected, widely-published, emergent voice ring out. In the same space used for this editorial, narrate what you are for. What are you for? When a problem emerges bring a solution or, at minimum, a suggestion. Nothing can withstand the power of collective thought by thinking minds. Oh yeah, confessional prayer helps, too.

by: jrz715

04-02-2009 @ 5:19pm

"6. Our addiction to easy answers. "Government is the problem." "Just throw money at the problem." We can't afford our addiction to these kinds of easy ideological slogans and facile reactive fantasies in a complex, real world. Ideology is, in many ways, a drug that substitutes the quick high of unthinking reaction for the hard work of acquiring wisdom."

Thanks for saying this! I tend just hide behind my reactive fantasies. This is good stuff to consider.

However, I still do think we need to strive for ideals. I think Jesus commanded us too!

by: jrz715

04-02-2009 @ 5:19pm

"6. Our addiction to easy answers. "Government is the problem." "Just throw money at the problem." We can't afford our addiction to these kinds of easy ideological slogans and facile reactive fantasies in a complex, real world. Ideology is, in many ways, a drug that substitutes the quick high of unthinking reaction for the hard work of acquiring wisdom."

Thanks for saying this! I tend just hide behind my reactive fantasies. This is good stuff to consider.

However, I still do think we need to strive for ideals. I think Jesus commanded us too!

by: RV

03-01-2010 @ 1:07pm

What are your thought's on the recent Health Care Summit?

by: RV

03-01-2010 @ 1:07pm

What are your thought's on the recent Health Care Summit?

by: RV Reviews

03-04-2010 @ 2:03pm

it just takes a good citizzen for a peace living...

by: RV Reviews

03-04-2010 @ 2:03pm

it just takes a good citizzen for a peace living...

by: RV Reviews

03-04-2010 @ 4:03pm

it just takes a good citizzen for a peace living...

by: RV Reviews

03-04-2010 @ 4:03pm

it just takes a good citizzen for a peace living...