“What is dubbed the war on terror is, in grim reality, a prolonged, worldwide irregular campaign—a struggle between the forces of violent extremism and those of moderation. Direct military force will continue to play a role in the long-term effort against terrorists and other extremists. But over the long term, the United States cannot kill or capture its way to victory.”

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20090101faessay88103/robert-m-gates/a-balanced-strategy.html

The rest of the para is even better:

“Where possible, what the military calls kinetic operations should be subordinated to measures aimed at promoting better governance, economic programs that spur development, and efforts to address the grievances among the discontented, from whom the terrorists recruit. It will take the patient accumulation of quiet successes over a long time to discredit and defeat extremist movements and their ideologies.”

Anyway, Last Gasps is as apt as can be.

Comments?

Low copayments could. Would you like to proffer any evidence that they have, or is sarcasm all that’s in stock today?

Katherine,

The article states:
‘A new president can unilaterally reverse executive orders issued by his predecessors, as Mr. Bush and President Bill Clinton did in selected cases. But it is much more difficult for a new president to revoke or alter final regulations put in place by a predecessor. A new administration must solicit public comment and supply “a reasoned analysis” for such changes, as if it were issuing a new rule, the Supreme Court has said.’

As Steven Attenwell says, it takes longer than having Congress exercise its power of reversal. The Congressional Review Act of 1996 seems like the tool to use if the Democrats can be rapidly herded together.

For a somewhat useful parallel, imagine that certain laws against false imprisonment and kidnapping were temporarily suspended. Sure, when the new Exec or legislature or whoever get into office, they can undo it – but what happened in the meantime? And won’t kidnappers be able to claim they thought their act was still technically legal? And what happens to ‘ongoing’ cases of false imprisonment?

More directly, if you’re allowed to dump dirt even for a one-week period, you’re going to dump a lot of dirt, then a lot more, and you’re going to fight any change in the courts as something you couldn’t possibly comply with until 10 years from now, since you’ve gotten so used to dirt-dumping during that week.

Obama can directly reverse any executive orders (not the same as regulations), but for him to reverse any regulations, he’d need to write up new ones, have them undergo the usual process of publication, public comments, hearings, and Congressional review. It’s just takes longer than the aforesaid Congrssional route.

But that was then.

Nothing. But we got this whole system of almost complete delegation of power to the executive in the first place, because Congress wanted to be able to parachute in on piddly little issues, and earn it’s graft, without having to worry about responsibility for how the larger system ran. I don’t expect the rent seekers just grew backbones overnight.

They’ll leave it to Obama, and the truth is, nothing stops him from reversing this, though like the Queen Mary, it might take a little while. But then, the ship’s been headed this way since well into the Clinton administration, so what’s the hurry?

See: who said Bush doesn’t spend time thinking about social justice.

I noticed this:

“Another, issued last week by the Health and Human Services Department, gives states sweeping authority to charge higher co-payments for doctor’s visits, hospital care and prescription drugs provided to low-income people under Medicaid.”

This is unfortunate, but it just might be a blessing in disguise. As a practical matter, right now many Medicaid beneficiaries might as well not be in the program at all, given how few doctors accept Medicaid patients. If higher co-payments mean more doctors began accepting Medicare recipients, then some health care with higher copayments is certainly better than no health care with lower copayments. On the other hand, the higher copayments may themselves act as a barrier. Higher copayments certainly are the least desirable solution to this problem; but it’s typical of heartless Bush administration.

I knew a woman who is a special education teacher in one of Austin, Texas’s small exurbs. She had two students with mouthes full of rotten teeth that were actually dangerous to their health as well as being a direct cause of their malnourishment. Despite the fact that both had dental coverage via Medicaid, there were no doctors in the area, including Austin, that would take them as patients. This teacher finally organized a radio fund-raising effort to provide for emergency dental care for these two students.

In New Mexico, where I live now, the state has organized an independent program with a larger pool of beneficiaries than just Medicaid recipients and which, for some reason, has far more health provider participation. Apparently, there is no problem here with Medicaid recipients getting health care, providing they choose to join this other program (“Salud”).

Obama has long had a low-profile working group researching and watching for these regulatory changes by the Bush admit and identifying which can be quickly reversed, and in what priority. We can hope they will be successful. There are so many, however, that one fears that this particular Bush legacy will be difficult to erase.