The lead article in today’s New York Times was titled, “Economic Pillar in Pakistan Area is Among Missing.” It describes the failure of landlords in the Swat Valley to return to their homes after the Pakistani Army fought to expel the Taliban.

Apparently, despite the success of the Pakistani Army in battles around the major towns, the landlords do not feel secure about returning home. The police force and medical services are non-existent, and the Taliban are continuing a policy of burning down landlord homes and kidnapping them. When the landlords flee, the Taliban redistribute their holdings to the peasants. While the Pakistani military claims that 478,000 people have returned after the fighting, there is no independent verification of the statistic.

In my opinion, this does not bode well for the Pakistani government. The Taliban are creating a constituency of peasants who support them after benefiting from this redistribution of wealth. The top Taliban leadership has been unaffected by the fighting, and they can now recruit liberally from the population base of the region. All they need to do is outwait the Pakistani Army as the Army is overextended on its other border with India.

In addition, there is support for the militant ideology throughout the governmental and intelligence structures of the nation, and the fight against the Taliban is still stained with an image as a proxy war on behalf of the United States. Plus, as long as the Taliban, and Al Qaeda, have a safe haven in Pakistan, the fighting in Afghanistan will be of no avail.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Subsidies’ Reach is Critical Issue for Health Plan.” It describes the subsidies offered to low-income people and others who are not currently insured. Subsidies are a critical issue in expanding healthcare coverage because this is the major goal of the legislation. If too many people try to opt out of coverage through a “hardship exemption,” one of the main goals of the legislation is stymied.

The article, however, notes that subsidies are a major factor in driving up the cost of the legislation, and they may be pared back as the legislation winds its way through the Senate and the House. The article noted that under the bill passed by the Senate health committee, a family of four with an annual income of $40,000 could end up paying 10 percent of family income for health insurance. 

Moreover, if a proposal by Blue Dog Democrats in the House is accepted, the limit for subsidies could be set at 300 percent of the poverty level. This could result in millions of middle-class families unable to purchase health insurance because they could not afford it.

In my opinion, President Obama and the leadership of the House and Senate need to stop pandering to the conservatives and Republicans. The Republicans have no intention of supporting the legislation, and the conservative Democrats will eventually fall into line. This country needs effective national healthcare not a compromise that only goes halfway.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “President Seeks Public’s Support on Health Care.” It describes President Obama’s continued attempts to bolster his effort to enact national healthcare. These efforts included a press conference last night, a meeting with conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats and an interview with Katie Couric, among others.

President Obama also tried to portray the costs of inaction, of doing nothing, while the system spirals out of control.  He supported a surtax on millionaires to pay for the program instead of a tax on employee benefits for the middle class.

In my opinion, he’s exactly right. The problem is that the legislation is being pushed and pulled to satisfy the demands of conservative Democrats as well as Republicans who have no inclination to support the final product. I would not be surprised to see the legislation passed with every single Republican voting against it.

And why? Pure politics. Instead of caring about the poor and needy families in this nation, the Republicans are more interesting in bringing Obama down, or as Republican Jim DeMint put it, creating “his Waterloo.” Republicans have opposed nearly every social program enacted over the years, including Social Security, Medicare and civil rights legislation. Their attempts at obfuscation and delay regarding national healthcare should not surprise anyone.

If it approves to be successful, and they all oppose it, they won’t be a majority party again for decades. It will be just like FDR.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Obama Pushing, But Early Vote on Health Fades.” The article describes a slippage in President Obama’s timetable for a full vote in the House and Senate before the August recess. It appears that conservative Democrats in the Senate are expressing reservations about the cost of the program, and members of the House are unwilling to vote for a tax increase without knowing whether the Senate will follow suit.

The House had planned to pay for national healthcare with a surtax on the richest Americans, but that approach seems to be dead in the Senate. In addition, supposedly non-partisan analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, have  estimated that healthcare costs could rise as a result of the legislation, not to mention the $1 trillion price tag. All this has spooked Blue Dog Democrats, a group of moderate and conservative legislators from swing districts.

In my opinion, time is of the essence. The Republicans are only interested in diversion and delay in the hope that special interests and lobbyists can be eventually weigh in and defeat the legislation.

The President remarked that the only time that things get done in Washington is when there’s a deadline. He’s right. We’ve been debating national healthcare for decades, and the time to act is now, when the Democrats control the Presidency and have a supermajority in the Senate. If we can’t get it done now, we deserve to go down in defeat.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Governors Fear Medicaid Costs in Health Plan.” It describes a debate at the summer meeting of the National Governors Association. During the meeting, several governors, Democrats included, expressed reservations about the possibility of additional unfunded mandates from the federal government as a result of the passage of national health insurance.

The article comes at a time when several states are facing severe financial difficulties as a result of the current recession. The possible expansion of the Medicaid program as a key element of reform would most likely increase the burden on states because they already pay for a significant portion of that program.

But why do I have that deja vu feeling about the long overdue passage of national healthcare? This has been the Democrats’ key issue with the public for years and years, yet we seem to hear one reservation after another. If the plan needs to be modified fine, but let’s just pass something, anything, without any more dithering around.

Members of the House and Senate are complaining about the lack of time to pass something before the August recession, yet the bill has been tied up in committees for months. If something doesn’t work, fine, we can always amend the legislation, but as they say, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Republicans Press Judge About Bias and Activism.” It describes the hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.  The Republicans questioned Judge Sotomayor regarding her statement about a “wise Latina women,” her judicial philosophy and her temprament. According to the article, there was little new ground broken, and the hearings were uneventful.

It’s also worthwhile to note that aside from Senator Sessions of Alabama, most of the Republicans were extremely deferential towards the judge, an attitude the Times attributes to a desire not to alienate the increasingly powerful Hispanic voting bloc.

In my opinion, these hearings seem to be particularly uninteresting because they are largely staged. We all know what each side is going to say and the anticipated responses. It’s almost like the Judiciary Committee is just going through the motions. This may be due, in some part, to the supermajority of 60 votes now commanded by the Democrats in the Senate.

If only the Democrats would wake up and realize the possibilities of this supermajority on other issues as well. It’s like they have been cowering before the manipulation of George W. Bush for so long, they have forgotten how to lead, even on issues like a public component to national healthcare, a stand favored by the vast majority of the American people. Of course, that’s another blog post.

The lead story in today’s New York Times is titled, “After 9/11, C.I.A. had Plan to Kill Qaeda’s Leaders.” It describes plans to assassinate Al Qaeda leaders through small paramilitary teams of operatives. The program, which took about 24 hours to leak, was first publicized as a secret operation that Dick Cheney had commanded the C.I.A. to keep secret from Congress.

According to the article, the program was never implemented, even though authority for it to proceed was renewed on a yearly basis. In addition, the concealment of the program from Congress specifically violated the process of informing Senate and House Oversight Committees. These committees were specifically formed to curtual previous excesses by the C.I.A.

Unlike the movies, the C.I.A. assassination teams posed some significant logistical problems. For example, where do you base the teams? Are they just sitting around on alert? How do you select the personnel so that other operations are not jeopardized?

In reality, the C.I.A. is not the all-knowing, cloak and dagger, efficient machine portrayed in the movies. It’s inability to stop the 9/11 attacks in the first place should offer clear evidence of that fact. For example, the bureaucratic limitations of any large government agency plague the C.I.A. as well.

Cheney’s commands to the C.I.A. are another matter. He has no legislative, executive or constitutional authority to order anyone to do anything. His sole duty, to preside over the Senate, precludes his giving commands to any agency. And these commands should represent the last straw of toleration for any of his nefarious acts.

Who does Cheney think he is? It’s time for Eric Holder to look into the matter.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Black-White Gap in Jobless Rates Widens in City.” It describes the impact of the recession on the black community, and in New York City, in particular. The article notes that while much attention has been focused on professional services, such as the financial sector and Wall Street, the impact on other sectors of the City’s economy has been even greater.

The article’s new jobless statistics seem to defy common sense. While it would be easier for businesses to save money by cutting higher-paying jobs at the top of the corporate ladder, the impact on lower-paying jobs, especially in the retail sector — due to the decline in consumer spending – has been even greater.

However, the results should come as no surprise to observers of U.S. politics and economic realities. Despite the fact that we have a black President, there is still much inequality in our nation. We’re making progress, but sometimes it appears to be two steps forward and one step back.

Fortunately, the best approach, to shine a light on the situation, is now occurring thanks to the article in the Times. Here are the statistics cited in the Times study: From the first quarter in 2008 to the first quarter in 2009, the national unemployment rates for blacks rose from 8.9 percent to 13.6 percent, compared to a rise for whites of 4.8 percent to 8.2 percent. In NYC, it was even worse: from 5.7 percent to 14.7 percent, compared to 3.0 percent to 3.7 percent for whites.

Do the math, and you’ll see the disparity.  If you’re an employer, please think carefully about your human resources policy.

The lead story in today’s New York Times is titled, “Albany Impasse Ends as Defector Rejoins Caucus.” The story describes the re-defection (defection back?) of Democratic State Senator Pedro Espada, Jr. His original betrayal of the Democrats had directly led to an inability to form a quorum and the paralysis of the State Senate for more than a month.

He returned to the Democratic fold only because the Democrats and the Republicans were on the verge of finalizing a power-sharing arrangement that would have marginalized him. On another front, Governor Patterson had appointed a new Lieutenant Governor, Richard Ravitch, in an act of dubious constitutionality, to accomplish the same goal.

In my opinion, any student of state politics, and New York in particular, knows that our legislature has long been one of the most dysfunctional and corrupt in the nation. While there are many noble and knowledgeable elected officials — Richard Brodsky of Westchester comes to mind — their effectiveness is limited by the “three people in a room” syndrome. That is, the Governor, head of the Assembly, and head of the State Senate, meet together and finalize legislation with no amendments or sometimes even participation from any other elected official.

One can only hope that the recent debacle will lead to some real reform.

Today’s lead story in The New York Times is titled, “U.S. Weighs Curbs for Speculators in Energy Trades.” It describes new attempts by federal regulators to control traders in markets for oil, gas and other energy commodities. These new rules are being implemented by the executive branch using President Obama’s existing powers, and they will include limits on volume of trading as well as increased disclosure requirements.

Apparently, speculative activity has been responsible for wild swings in the price of a barrel of oil, with a direct result on the prices that consumers pay at the gas pump. Oil prices rose to a record high of $145 a barrel last summer, then sank to $33 a barrel in December. The current level is about $60.

In my opinion, it’s refreshing to see President Obama reverse some of the trends of the Bush administration and its laissez-faire attitude toward the business world. Tougher requirements for banks, hedge funds and credit card companies have all been instituted under his watch. At last, the exploitations of the rich and powerful are being reined in by increased oversight and anti-trust regulations.

The problem is not interference with markets or even capitalism, as some would suggest. It’s stopping attempts at economic manipulation for the benefit of a very few corrupt players and insiders. And that’s good reason for average Americans to celebrate.