This makes Obama only the second politician I can remember (after Bill Clinton) to do something musical in public and not come off looking foolish. I also love that he basically did it on a dare from whoever he’s talking to offstage.

BP Makes Amends
When the oil spill first occurred back in April of 2010, environmentalists claimed the damage could last for years, if not decades. Economists predicted economic doom for the Gulf region, already damaged by past hurricanes and other natural disasters. But now, less than two years later, we read this in the New York Times:

BP has performed quite admirably in [the] aftermath. It has spared no expense in cleaning up the oil. It has set aside $1 billion to restore the environment and coastal ecosystem. It underwrote an advertising campaign to lure tourists back to the Gulf Coast. Today, less than two years after the spill, the beaches are sparkling, most fishermen are working and many of the hotels are full.

At the urging of President Obama, BP also agreed to set up a $20 billion fund to compensate anyone who could show that they’d been economically harmed by the accident. Ken Feinberg, the former administrator of the Sept. 11 victim compensation fund, was put in charge of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, as it was named. Feinberg has since paid out $6.3 billion to nearly 200,000 claimants. Daniel Becnel, a lawyer who has settled thousands of claims, says that his clients often receive more money from Feinberg than they would have if they had gone to court. “You couldn’t have done a better job than Feinberg did,” says Becnel.

So kudos all around. BP, the corporate villain who was accused of caring more about profits than people, has done the right thing. Our government stepped in to help and actually made the process more effective and efficient than it otherwise would have been. And the people of the Gulf Coast worked hard, rebuilt, and are now reaping the benefits – despite a continuing tough economy.

The widening pay gap on Wall Street
We read all the time about big Wall Street bonuses and how those rich bankers take every opportunity to reward themselves with sky-high bonuses while “the 99%” suffer. But here’s a pretty clear depiction of how the financial crisis affected Wall Street firms:

Now, before everyone jumps all over me, I’m not suggesting that $128,000 is a small amount of money, or that the average Wall Street worker is suffering. But it is noteworthy that the average bonus dropped 44% when the crisis hit, and is still 28% below pre-crisis levels. And, according to the article, the 2011 bonuses will likely average $77,000-$90,000 (a 30-40% drop from 2010), or less than the immediate post-crisis figures of 2008. Again: my point is not to launch a telethon for the poor Wall Street bankers, or to suggest that someone making a base salary plus a $90,000 bonus deserves any kind of pity. Instead, I think it’s interesting to note that the industry does police itself pretty effectively when it comes to compensation, despite the lack of any major regulations requiring them to do so.

As an aside: the article attempts to call out Wall Street firms for paying their “top performers” higher bonuses than everyone else. Anyone who’s ever worked in a meritocracy realizes how hollow this criticism rings. Whatever the bonus pool – down 30-40% or up 30-40%, one should always expect the larger share to go to the strongest performers. That is, after all, why they call it “incentive compensation.” In a base+bonus pay model, a prominent reason for putting some portion of the pay “at risk” is to allow companies to reward strong performers relative to weaker ones. And, in a down year like 2011, I don’t think a reward of “same as last year” is overly excessive for those performing at the peak.

This year, I once again note the degree to which we are moving on. There will be memorial services of course, but the President’s remarks at his most recent press conference show the shift in emphasis:

I’ll have further remarks tomorrow, but for now let me just note that tomorrow is a National Day of Service and Remembrance and I hope each of us finds a way to serve our fellow citizens — not only to reaffirm our deepest values as Americans, but to rekindle that spirit of unity and common purpose that we felt in the days that followed that September morning.

As was the case last year, I think this is an altogether healthy thing. We should not forget; we should never forget. But there will never come a time when September 11th isn’t the anniversary of the attacks. If we use the occasion as an annual reminder to do something positive, like a National Day of Service, then the day won’t fade into obscurity the way that Pearl Harbor Day has, for instance. As the grief fades, this grim anniversary will come to stand as a regular reminder of the American values that were attacked that day. I can live with that.

Sadly, there’s something else to note about the ninth anniversary of September 11, 2001. The national spirit of unity and community that enveloped us in 2001 has, as one would expect, long since faded. But this year, somewhat suddenly and for no apparent reason, the opposite sentiment – that of hatred, cruelty, and division seems to have sprung up and captured the national spotlight. It is evident in protests, sometimes peaceful but sometimes violent, against the building of places of worship in America, and it’s evident in the suggested burning of sacred religious texts by those of different faiths. Again, I turn to the President’s remarks:

Anne Kornblut: Thank you, Mr. President. Nine years after the September 11th attacks, why do you think it is that we are now seeing such an increase in suspicion and outright resentment of Islam, especially given that it has been one of your priorities to increase — to improve relations with the Muslim world?

President Obama: I think that at a time when the country is anxious generally and going through a tough time, then fears can surface, suspicions, divisions can surface in a society. And so I think that plays a role in it.

One of the things that I most admired about President Bush was after 9/11, him being crystal-clear about the fact that we were not at war with Islam. We were at war with terrorists and murderers who had perverted Islam, had stolen its banner to carry out their outrageous acts. And I was so proud of the country rallying around that idea, that notion that we are not going to be divided by religion; we’re not going to be divided by ethnicity. We are all Americans. We stand together against those who would try to do us harm.

And that’s what we’ve done over the last nine years. And we should take great pride in that. And I think it is absolutely important now for the overwhelming majority of the American people to hang on to that thing that is best in us, a belief in religious tolerance, clarity about who our enemies are — our enemies are al Qaeda and their allies who are trying to kill us, but have killed more Muslims than just about anybody on Earth. We have to make sure that we don’t start turning on each other.

And I will do everything that I can as long as I am President of the United States to remind the American people that we are one nation under God, and we may call that God different names but we remain one nation. And as somebody who relies heavily on my Christian faith in my job, I understand the passions that religious faith can raise. But I’m also respectful that people of different faiths can practice their religion, even if they don’t subscribe to the exact same notions that I do, and that they are still good people, and they are my neighbors and they are my friends, and they are fighting alongside us in our battles.

And I want to make sure that this country retains that sense of purpose. And I think [September 11th] is a wonderful day for us to remind ourselves of that.

And in response to a later question:

We’ve got millions of Muslim Americans, our fellow citizens, in this country. They’re going to school with our kids. They’re our neighbors. They’re our friends. They’re our coworkers. And when we start acting as if their religion is somehow offensive, what are we saying to them?

I’ve got Muslims who are fighting in Afghanistan in the uniform of the United States armed services. They’re out there putting their lives on the line for us. And we’ve got to make sure that we are crystal-clear for our sakes and their sakes they are Americans and we honor their service. And part of honoring their service is making sure that they understand that WE DON’T DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THEM AND US. IT’S JUST US.

[Emphasis added by me]

It’s easy to say that all of this is just politics rearing its ugly head right before a midterm election. But that was the case in 2006 and 2002 as well. And, one could argue, even more so the case in 2004 and 2008, when a Presidential election was on the line.

I think this is something else. A lot of people will believe just about anything they hear repeated enough times on television or the Internet, like the idea that the President of the United States is a secret Muslim who was born in Kenya, or that mosque-goers in lower Manhattan are the equivalent of Al-Qaeda terrorists. The media attention that naturally follows controversial speech provides cover for two kinds of people: those too lazy to think critically about “Today’s Top Story,” and those who actually harbor bigoted feelings towards entire groups of people who are different than they are.

I hope that September 11th truly becomes our annual reminder to “reaffirm our deepest values as Americans.” I also hope that in future years, it serves as a defense against those who would intentionally divide us for the sake of drawing attention to themselves, regardless of their motives. As the President also said repeatedly in his press conference, “We are not there yet.”

Here’s hoping we’re moving in the right direction.

God Bless America.

Fortunately, that last group includes New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who, surrounded by religious leaders of many different faiths, gave an impassioned speech about religious freedom while announcing that the petition for the building’s landmark status has been denied, clearing the way for construction to begin.

Today, the New York Times ran an article about the woman in charge of the mosque project. Here are some things I learned from reading the article that I’m sure Newt, Sarah & Glenn don’t want anyone to focus on:

• It’s not just a mosque, it’s a 15-floor Muslim Community Center, which will include a mosque, along with a swimming pool, art classes, baby sitting, and a complete program of inter-faith joint projects with other religious groups in the area.
• The first thing the organizer, Ms. Daisy Khan, did when she began planning the project in 2005 was call Joy Levitt, executive director of the Jewish Community Center on Manhattan’s Upper West side. Ms. Levitt, who is a rabbi, advised Ms. Khan about some of the big problems she’d have launching a Muslim community center in New York: the lack of sufficient stroller parking for members with small children, and a place for the Muslim street cart vendors to store their wares while using the facility.
• At Ms. Khan’s first public presentation about the center (a voluntary presentation at a Lower Manhattan community board meeting), she received support from the United Jewish Federation of New York, Trinity Church, and the September 11 Families for a Peaceful Tomorrow.
• The mosque’s Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf (Ms. Khan’s husband), moved to the United States as a teenager, and attended Columbia University. He is currently 62 years old. His sermons are reported to contain “sweet spirituality,” rather than “rules and regulations or politics.”
• His congregation currently meets at a mosque twelve blocks from Ground Zero (the proposed center is two blocks from Ground Zero – in the former Burlington Coat Factory building). The current mosque was built twenty years ago. In twenty years (including the nine years since the terrorist attacks), no one has complained about the existing mosque’s presence.
• After marrying in 1997, Ms. Khan and Imam Feisal started an organization advocating the melding of Islamic observance with women’s rights and modernity. After 9/11, their group spoke out against religious violence, Imam Feisal advised the FBI, and Ms. Khan joined the board of the 9/11 memorial and museum.
• Sharif el-Gamal, the developer that funded the project, sustained an eye injury while handing out water to emergency workers on 9/11.

These folks sound like monsters, huh?

Here’s the thing: I can understand how the pain the victim’s families feel will never truly go away. I can also understand how the mere mention of anything connected to 9/11 or Ground Zero dredges up memories of that awful day, and how that will likely always be unpleasant for those who lost loved ones. These folks will have my empathy for as long as I live, as they will endure the dull ache of loss for as long as they live.

I can understand all of that. What I can’t understand is how so many people, many of them community leaders and elected officials, can state or imply that any Muslim who is in any way connected to a mosque that’s located in Lower Manhattan is in some way connected with, or even remotely similar to, the evil creatures that killed 3,000 innocent civilians by flying planes into office buildings.

The only thing that the average mosque-goer has in common with the 9/11 terrorists is that they both claim to worship the same God. I say “claim” because I’m sure many Muslims would argue that the things the terrorists did and said in the name of Allah were nothing more than a misappropriation of one of the world’s great religions to justify evil behavior. But ignoring that technicality, a shared religion is a pretty weak link between two groups of people, and certainly no reason to deny American citizens one of their basic civil rights. If this mosque does become a reminder of the terrorist attacks, or a symbol of victory for Al Qaeda, I dare say it will be predominantly because of the ignorant and incendiary remarks of these protesters than anything the mosque-goers or community center organizers will have said or done.

All of that said, I think those in charge of the center have missed, and are still missing, a golden opportunity here. I would love to see them on television every single day, talking to people about some of the things I mentioned above, stressing their planned inter-faith community programs, and publicly standing up in defense of American freedom of religion and against the actions of Al Qaeda and terrorists everywhere. If they were to actively pursue such a course of action, I think the media focus they have achieved thus far would go a long way toward removing some of the mystique surrounding Islam for many Americans, and highlight the clear difference between peace-loving Muslims and radical, extremist terrorists.

Mr. Gamal refuses to do this, mainly because he feels he shouldn’t have to. “This is not a debate,” he says. “I’m an American. I’m a New Yorker. I’m exercising my freedoms in this country.” It’s hard not to respect his stance. But eventually, I hope he changes his mind. Not because he has any obligation to do so, but because of the great benefit it will provide American Muslims and American non-Muslims alike to hear about his center’s role in the Lower Manhattan community.

LONDON—U.S. banks have paid the bulk of the £2.5 billion ($3.81 billion) the U.K. has collected from its bonus tax designed to curb excessive pay, hitting banks’ second-quarter earnings while creating a windfall for the U.K.’s new government.

The one-time tax to collect 50% of bank bonuses above £25,000 was introduced in December by former Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling, who initially estimated it would raise £550 million. . . The charge applies to all bank employees working in the U.K., regardless of where the parent company is located.

According to statements in the past few days from J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., the four banks collectively paid at least $2 billion toward the tax in the second quarter. The U.K. five major banks by assets–Barclays, HSBC Holdings PLC, Lloyds Banking Group, Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC and Standard Chartered–collectively paid about $1.1 billion to cover their bonus tax bills.

(NOTE: The Wall Street Journal may ask you to pay to read the whole article. Don’t – read it for free.)

So that’s $2 billion less for these banks’ (predominantly U.S.) shareholders, or $2 billion less in available capital to modify underwater (American) mortgages, or $2 billion less to loan to (American) small businesses – take your pick. Either way, it occurs to me that as an employee, shareholder and customer of one or more of these banks, the British government just levied a tax on me, even though I didn’t get a vote in their election. And the recently elected government is “warn[ing] the industry to be on alert for further taxes and regulations, particularly relating to compensation.”

Haven’t we been down this road before, England? Don’t you remember what happened the last time? I’m pretty sure it made all the papers. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I think I’ll go get myself a cup of tea…

Not interested? No offense taken. Move on to bigger and better things. Up for the discussion? Read on…

Let’s start with health care. I wonder what would have happened had this story about Canada’s health care system hit the newswires before the American health care reform bill passed into law. Some of the key points:

Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada’s provinces are taking tough measures to curb healthcare costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system.

British Columbia is replacing block grants to hospitals with fee-for-procedure payments and Quebec has a new flat health tax and a proposal for payments on each medical visit.

A few provinces are also experimenting with private funding for procedures such as hip, knee and cataract surgery.

“We can’t continually see health spending growing above and beyond the growth rate in the economy because, at some point, it means crowding out of all the other government services. At some stage we’re going to hit a breaking point.”

Healthcare in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded system, which covers all “medically necessary” hospital and physician care and curbs the role of private medicine. It ate up about 40 percent of provincial budgets last year. Ontario says healthcare could eat up 70 percent of its budget in 12 years, if all these costs are left unchecked

As Ottawa looks to repair its budget balance … one could see these one-time allocations to specific health projects might be curtailed.

Provinces are weighing new sources of funding, including “means-testing” and moving toward evidence-based and pay-for-performance models.

Government-sponsored healthcare costs spiraling out of control? Consideration of a move back to a fee-for-procedure system? Alternative (private) funding options? Cutting health projects because they’re too expensive? It all sounds a lot to me like what the opponents of President Obama’s health care bill were warning us would happen.

All of which serves to reinforce the two things which I believe to be true about American health care: first, that our recent reform law will provide insurance to people who otherwise wouldn’t have had it. And second, that the cost of doing this will be orders of magnitude above the “deficit neutral” claims made by the Obama administration, and confirmed by the CBO through the full knowledge of the CBO’s mandate to use the assumptions it was given, rather than weighing in on the validity of those assumptions.

Moving on to financial reform. I’ve written in these pages before about what I felt were punitive attacks by the current administration on the wealthiest and most visible players in the financial markets, usually to inflame public anger and direct that energy toward a political goal.

Now, with oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico at an alarming rate, the President, like his predecessor, faces unfair criticism about his commitment to responding to an environmental disaster. And, like his predecessor, he cannot resist the urge to respond, telling Matt Lauer of the Today Show, “I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answer so I know whose ass to kick.”

And like the financial crisis, “kicking ass” is defined as finding the most visible players in the crisis, emphasizing their role in causing the crisis, and suggesting punishment. Mr. Obama has said publicly that he would fire BP’s CEO, Tony Hayward. The American Justice Department has announced that it is “planning to take action to force BP to withhold its next dividend payment.” The President and others in his administration have publicly called on BP to pay reparations to every individual on the Gulf Coast that was affected by the oil spill, causing some to question BP’s ability to remain solvent. This latest round of remarks sent BP’s stock price plunging yet again (it’s down roughly 50% from when the oil leak began), seriously harming the pension funds of BP’s 80,000 employees, most of whom had never heard of Deep Water Horizon until it exploded a month and a half ago. In Britian, where President Obama was once considered something of a celebrity, the mood is anger and disillusionment:

The stream of condemnations from Washington has stirred a protective backlash, even in this closest of American allies. Boris Johnson, the Conservative mayor of London, said Thursday that he was worried about “anti-British rhetoric” and “name calling” from American politicians. “When you consider the huge exposure of British pension funds to BP, it starts to become a matter of national concern if a great British company is being continually beaten up on the airwaves,” Mr. Johnson told BBC radio’s Today program.

Iain Armstrong, an analyst at Brewin Dolphin, an investment manager here, said that the situation had become “overpoliticized” and had confused the markets about BP’s actual strength. “It’s gotten completely out of hand,” he said. “Ironically, by being extremely strong financially, BP has become a target.”

Here’s an idea, Mr. President: don’t kick anybody’s ass just yet. Meeting with experts is commendable, but not if its sole purpose is to assign blame. The experts can help you minimize the damage to American citizens and find ways to recover as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Where are the blue-ribbon panels to recommend clean-up strategies? Where is the coordinated response of federal and state aid agencies to assist those whose livelihoods have been damaged (again) in the Gulf Coast states, assess and address the environmental impact, and protect our citizens from further harm? And perhaps most importantly, Mr. President, why must these things wait until we’ve finished blaming and punishing BP? Your job is to make things better for American citizens, not to hand out pitchforks and torches to them.

One more thing, sir: Whether or not BP caused this mess, whether they were negligent, greedy, or simply damn unlucky, and whether or not they are viewed negatively by the public right now, they remain one of the very few entities in the world that can help stop the leak. Standing in the corner and poking them with a stick might feel good, but it distracts their leadership from the important job of solving the problem, and while you may not wish to depend on those who allowed such a tragedy to occur, you really don’t have a choice. A successful “ass-kicking” by you, in the form of harsh financial penalties, changes in the company’s leadership, and possibly even the dissolution of the company itself will not make the oil stop flowing. Much like the way the Wall Street banks need to be healthy and profitable in order to absorb the risk of full-scale small-business and mortgage lending, we must balance the human need to blame and punish with the more practical need of allowing our most qualified resources to do what they do best. The criminals will be punished in good time. The unethical will be shamed into retirement. In the meantime, we have no meaningful financial reform and we have no cap on the oil leak.

(click to enlarge)

Have at it, folks…

Here, word for word, is what Rush Limbaugh said about Haiti (the audio, in case you don’t believe me, is here):

Rush Limbaugh: OK, back to the phones or to the phones. We’re going to start in Raleigh, NC. Justin, you’re first today. Great to have you with us. Hello.

Justin: Mega-Rush, baby, ditto. My question is, why did Obama, in the soundbyte you played earlier, when he’s talking about if you want to donate some money, you can go to whitehouse.gov to be directed…you know, to direct you how to do so. Why would…if I want to donate money to the Red Cross, why do I need to go to the whitehouse.gov page and . . .

RL: Exactly. Exactly. Would you trust that the money is going to go to Haiti?

J: No.

RL: But would you trust that your name is going to end up on a mailing list for the Obama people to start asking you for campaign donations for him and other causes?

J: Absolutely.

RL: Absolutely right.

J: That’s the point.

RL: Besides, we’ve already donated to Haiti. It’s called the U.S. Income Tax.

J: Rush, my mother was going to be on a missionary trip. She was gonna leave at 4:30 this morning to go to Haiti from our church.

RL: That’s another point too. Churches…

J: No government money, Rush.

RL: There are people – exactly right. There are people who do charitable work every day in Haiti. It’s not as though…like Debbie Wasserman Schultz – “It’s our fault.” Like Reverend Wright – “It’s our fault. There’s no excuse for such poverty when there’s a nation as rich as we are so close.” There are people that have been trying to save Haiti just as we’re trying to save Africa. You just can’t keep throwing money at it because the dictatorships there just take it all. They don’t spread it around. And even if they did, you’re not creating a permanent system where people can provide for themselves. It’s a simple matter of self-reliance. Nobody takes that approach down there because this has always been a country run by dictators – incompetent ones…

Now, call me crazy if you wish, but nothing in this exchange suggests to me that Rush Limbaugh doesn’t think private individuals like you and I should donate to Haiti. In fact, it seems pretty clear to me that the opinion he’s expressing is that people, like the caller’s mother, who go to Haiti and help the people directly, are being more effective than our government is being by sending our tax dollars to their government. He’s suggesting that the foreign aid the United States provides to Haiti doesn’t make it to the people who are suffering, and so the Haitian people are better served by private individuals, churches, and the so forth donating time (and, presumably, supplies?) directly to the people who need it.

Now, I have no idea if he’s right about that, and I certainly wouldn’t take Rush Limbaugh at his word about anything. But I think it’s quite a leap to go from the above quote to “Rush Limbaugh [says] Don’t Donate to Haiti Victims,” which is the headline of the above-linked article.

Sadly, though, the public zeitgeist has been poured and hardened: Rush Limbaugh thinks we should just let the people of Haiti suffer. And, thanks to Pat Robertson’s preaching about “pacts with the devil” on the same day, the two men are now inextricably linked in every news article, suggesting that Limbaugh believes that Haitians are devil worshipers as well. To dispute this storyline is as foolhardy as spitting into the wind.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go wash my face…