An article in The New Republic by Ed Kilgore identifies a trend among newly-Tea Party influenced State governments to reduce corporate taxes and progressive income taxes in favor of higher consumption taxes (which, as we all know, affect lower-income residents more than upper-income ones).
This may seem deliberately mean-spirited, but I don't think that's the case. Republicans believe, as a matter of ideological faith (and therefore a belief that contrary facts won't change) that lower taxes will result in economic growth and greater tax revenues. However, even if you accept the Republican belief system, the reduction of corporate taxes ultimately will not yield a benefit.
The concept of reducing corporate taxes in, say, South Carolina, is that businesses will be incentivized to move to South Carolina--or, if already there, they will not be induced to move out of state-- because of the favorable tax climate. But this is a zero-sum game. South Carolina's lower taxes might induce a company to move from, say, New Jersey, to South Carolina. Realizing it is losing business to South Carolina, New Jersey will respond by lowering its corporate taxes.
Eventually, all states reduce their corporate taxes in an effort to retain or attract business. The result is that corporate taxes nationally have been reduced--to the benefit of businesses--but not a single new job has been created. All that happens is that jobs relocate from one state to another. South Carolina's gain is New Jersey's loss The states become willing participants in a sucker's game--competing for business against the other states.
One can't blame South Carolina or the other states mentioned in Kilgore's article for trying to compete for jobs by creating favorable business climates and, in particular, reducing corporate taxes. But it's important to recognize that corporate tax cuts don't "create" jobs, they just shuffle the deck.
From the perspective of a national economy, this sort of tax reduction isn't productive at all. But this is a problem inherent in the Federalist system. One solution would be to adopt a national corporate tax that would replace individual state corporate taxes. The national corporate tax revenues would be distributed back to the states based on the place of origin. This would create a level playing field and avoid the "race to the bottom" effect of having the states competing with each other with respect to tax rates. Of course, the chances of a rational policy such as this actually being adopted is nil.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Monday, December 20, 2010
All Things Palin
Once again, Palin makes a snarky--and, of course--inaccurate--comment about Michelle Obama's campaign against child obesity. Who knew that this cause would provoke controversy?
Palin is cursed with a compulsion to respond to every criticism leveled at her and to comment on nearly everything the Obama Administration does. I don't think she's doing herself any favors by doing this.
Michelle Obama remains extremely popular, particularly among that portion of the U.S. electorate that is the "swing" vote in 2010--genuine independents. As with most of what Palin says, this attack undoubtedly pleases the base but wins no friends elsewhere.
Palin asserts that the Obama anti-obesity campaign intends to impose Federal laws resricting what parents can allow their children to eat, and that this is an unacceptabel incursion on individual freedom. If the claim were true, I would have to agree with Palin. (Although we need to make a distinction between "unsafe" food, which is properly the subject of regulation and restriction, and safe but "unhealthy" food, which should not be regulated.) However, it is my understanding that the legislation tied to this campaign is aimed at providing better education to consumer about food contents and healthiness and to limiting the kinds of food that public schools can offer students. These aims ought to be non-controversial.
Even if there is an element of the pending legslation which would allow the Government to restrict the food a parent buys for or fees his or her child, one would think that the serious response from a critc would be to push to modify the legislation in order to remove the offending portions, so as to preserve the remainder. Not only does Palin appear to be persnally attackking the First Lady, admirred figure and one who is--and shuld be--out of the direct line of fir.
And besides her snark, what does Palin contribute to our understanding of this health issue? Doe she say what she does like about the legislation, identify what she woud do on this issue if President, or even acknowledge the existion of this proble? No.
Palin is cursed with a compulsion to respond to every criticism leveled at her and to comment on nearly everything the Obama Administration does. I don't think she's doing herself any favors by doing this.
Michelle Obama remains extremely popular, particularly among that portion of the U.S. electorate that is the "swing" vote in 2010--genuine independents. As with most of what Palin says, this attack undoubtedly pleases the base but wins no friends elsewhere.
Palin asserts that the Obama anti-obesity campaign intends to impose Federal laws resricting what parents can allow their children to eat, and that this is an unacceptabel incursion on individual freedom. If the claim were true, I would have to agree with Palin. (Although we need to make a distinction between "unsafe" food, which is properly the subject of regulation and restriction, and safe but "unhealthy" food, which should not be regulated.) However, it is my understanding that the legislation tied to this campaign is aimed at providing better education to consumer about food contents and healthiness and to limiting the kinds of food that public schools can offer students. These aims ought to be non-controversial.
Even if there is an element of the pending legslation which would allow the Government to restrict the food a parent buys for or fees his or her child, one would think that the serious response from a critc would be to push to modify the legislation in order to remove the offending portions, so as to preserve the remainder. Not only does Palin appear to be persnally attackking the First Lady, admirred figure and one who is--and shuld be--out of the direct line of fir.
And besides her snark, what does Palin contribute to our understanding of this health issue? Doe she say what she does like about the legislation, identify what she woud do on this issue if President, or even acknowledge the existion of this proble? No.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mitt Romney
The notion that Mitt Romney, after spending 4 years pandering to the Republican right wing in order to get in their good graces, would, as President, revert to the non-ideological technocratic, moderate that he is believed to be deep down inside is purely delusional.
Let's assume that he wins the Republican nomination (extremely unlikely) and the election, he will be in thrall to that same right wing. How would anyone expect him to suddenly stop pandering or to ignore the immense amount of pressure that will be placed on him (or any Republican President) from the Rush Limbough segment of the party? Romney would be toast the first time he transgresses, and he will be fully aware of that fact. And after spending so much time and effort blowing with the prevailing winds in his chosen party, how would he ever find the moral courage to change course?
We can forget the notion that Romney would govern as a moderate. That may be his natural inclination, but he has suppressed that to date and will continue to do so.
Let's assume that he wins the Republican nomination (extremely unlikely) and the election, he will be in thrall to that same right wing. How would anyone expect him to suddenly stop pandering or to ignore the immense amount of pressure that will be placed on him (or any Republican President) from the Rush Limbough segment of the party? Romney would be toast the first time he transgresses, and he will be fully aware of that fact. And after spending so much time and effort blowing with the prevailing winds in his chosen party, how would he ever find the moral courage to change course?
We can forget the notion that Romney would govern as a moderate. That may be his natural inclination, but he has suppressed that to date and will continue to do so.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Oprah and dickens
Hillary Kelly, a New Republic book editor, takes umbrage at Oprah's decision to read Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities and Great Expectations as her book club entries for this month. Oprah's offense, according to Kelly, is three-fold:
First, Oprah herself has not read these books. Kelly likens this to a high school English teacher having his or her class read one of these books without first reading it. Of course, Oprah isn't running a schoolroom, she's leading a book group, where typically all members read the same book at the same time.
Second, Oprah urges us all to read these books in order to learn more about ourselves, a goal which Kelly finds inappropriate. It seems that Kelly believes that the only reason to read great literature is for its own sake, for its greatness. While I don't know that Dickens--or any classic literature for that matter-should really be pimped out as a self-help book, as a come-on to encourage her large audience to take up what might be somewhat of a challenge seems perfectly appropriate to me. And the fact is that, in reading Dickens or any great author of that era (or any other), we can certainly recognize universal truths about people and, perhaps, we might well learn something about ourselves.
Third, Kelly seems to think that these two works will be too hard fo most of Oprah's followers. I don't quite know what to say about that. It's undoubtedly true that the 19th Century voice and style won't appeal to some readers, but let's remember that both of these books are standard for High School English classes.
(I happen to love Dickens. My preferred novels are Bleak House, David Copperfield and Our Mutual Friend, and I'm not a fan of A Tale of Two Cities at all. I'm guessing that Oprah picked these two particular novels because they are among the shortest of Dicken's novels, and she may have been concerned that the length of Bleak House or Copperfield would deter some of her audience from attempting these books.)
Kelly's crabby objections seem to me to be the height of academic snobbery: How dare Oprah choose to tackle really great literature in a popular manner? How dare Oprah's middle class and working class audience presume to read books that Kelly considers fine literature?
Really, so what if some of the Oprah audience use Sparknotes to help them understand what they're reading? So what if Oprah hasn't pre-read her picks? If members of Oprah's audience enjoy the wonderful writing and Dicken's imagination, and perhaps even start to acquire a taste for, and get over a fear of, other great books from the 19th Century, isn't that all good?
First, Oprah herself has not read these books. Kelly likens this to a high school English teacher having his or her class read one of these books without first reading it. Of course, Oprah isn't running a schoolroom, she's leading a book group, where typically all members read the same book at the same time.
Second, Oprah urges us all to read these books in order to learn more about ourselves, a goal which Kelly finds inappropriate. It seems that Kelly believes that the only reason to read great literature is for its own sake, for its greatness. While I don't know that Dickens--or any classic literature for that matter-should really be pimped out as a self-help book, as a come-on to encourage her large audience to take up what might be somewhat of a challenge seems perfectly appropriate to me. And the fact is that, in reading Dickens or any great author of that era (or any other), we can certainly recognize universal truths about people and, perhaps, we might well learn something about ourselves.
Third, Kelly seems to think that these two works will be too hard fo most of Oprah's followers. I don't quite know what to say about that. It's undoubtedly true that the 19th Century voice and style won't appeal to some readers, but let's remember that both of these books are standard for High School English classes.
(I happen to love Dickens. My preferred novels are Bleak House, David Copperfield and Our Mutual Friend, and I'm not a fan of A Tale of Two Cities at all. I'm guessing that Oprah picked these two particular novels because they are among the shortest of Dicken's novels, and she may have been concerned that the length of Bleak House or Copperfield would deter some of her audience from attempting these books.)
Kelly's crabby objections seem to me to be the height of academic snobbery: How dare Oprah choose to tackle really great literature in a popular manner? How dare Oprah's middle class and working class audience presume to read books that Kelly considers fine literature?
Really, so what if some of the Oprah audience use Sparknotes to help them understand what they're reading? So what if Oprah hasn't pre-read her picks? If members of Oprah's audience enjoy the wonderful writing and Dicken's imagination, and perhaps even start to acquire a taste for, and get over a fear of, other great books from the 19th Century, isn't that all good?
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Tax Cut Deal--Part II
The Club For Growth, Heritage Foundation, the lovely and talented Michelle Bachmann and Dr. Tom (Coburn), as well as many of their allies on the extreme right, are opposed to the tax cut deal, principally because it extends unemployment benefits without "paying for it"?
Well, we could solve that problem with....a tax increase on upper income brackets! But the Club For Growth and everyone in the Republican Party has take the pledge--no tax increases ever, under any circumstances.
I understand the consistent opposition to any sort of tax increase; for true believers, it's a matter of religious faith, unaffected by contrary real-world evidence, and for the rest of the party, it's either almost willful ignorance about economic/financial facts or a careerist choice to go with the single most important Republican dogma (a departure from which will spell doom within the Party and its associated circles). Among Republicans--many of whom, I think, are not really true believers--anyone who goes off the reservation on this issue will cease to have a viable political career and will have a tough time arranging for the typical post-Congressional career as a lobbyist, think tank employee, conservative columnist, etc.
But even for the true believers, the objection to the compromise based on not paying for the unemployment benefits is breathtakingly hypocritical. Even these religious nuts have to understand that (a) a modest tax increase on upper bracket incomes would have paid for the unemployment benefits, with no significant adverse effect on either those wealthy individuals or the economy as a whole, but they choose not to go that route; and (b) to complain about not funding unemployment benefits while advocating unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy is inherently contradictory. Both will increase the deficit in the short run, if not the long run. (At least, unemployment benefits will have the effect of putting most of that money right back into the economy.)
Well, we could solve that problem with....a tax increase on upper income brackets! But the Club For Growth and everyone in the Republican Party has take the pledge--no tax increases ever, under any circumstances.
I understand the consistent opposition to any sort of tax increase; for true believers, it's a matter of religious faith, unaffected by contrary real-world evidence, and for the rest of the party, it's either almost willful ignorance about economic/financial facts or a careerist choice to go with the single most important Republican dogma (a departure from which will spell doom within the Party and its associated circles). Among Republicans--many of whom, I think, are not really true believers--anyone who goes off the reservation on this issue will cease to have a viable political career and will have a tough time arranging for the typical post-Congressional career as a lobbyist, think tank employee, conservative columnist, etc.
But even for the true believers, the objection to the compromise based on not paying for the unemployment benefits is breathtakingly hypocritical. Even these religious nuts have to understand that (a) a modest tax increase on upper bracket incomes would have paid for the unemployment benefits, with no significant adverse effect on either those wealthy individuals or the economy as a whole, but they choose not to go that route; and (b) to complain about not funding unemployment benefits while advocating unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy is inherently contradictory. Both will increase the deficit in the short run, if not the long run. (At least, unemployment benefits will have the effect of putting most of that money right back into the economy.)
Tax Cut Deal
I would dearly have loved to see Obama give a big, fat "fuck you" (politely, of course) to the Republicans by refusing to budge on the tax bill--insisting on a bill which extended the Bush tax cuts for the "middle class" (however defined) and refusing to extend them for higher income brackets. Of course, such a bill was not going to pass, since Republicans in the Senate would have blocked it. He could have gone out with the strong message that the Republicans were solely responsible for (1) increasing taxes on the middle class, (2) the failure to extend unemployment benefits to the out of work, and (3) the failure to even have a vote on the Start treaty (thereby putting partisan politics ahead of national security), and that the Republicans held all of this hostage in return for tax cuts for the wealthy. The arrogance of the Republicans in Congress make them vulnerable in this respect.
That would be a strong message, although I have doubts on the Democrats' ability to be heard over the obscene and disgusting noise machine that is Fox News, talk radio, the WSJ editorial page etc.
Yes, I would have found it emotionally satisfying to see Obama go to war with these assholes. I suspect Obama has been burning with rage internally over the last several months, if not the last 2 years; most everyone on the left that I know feels that way.
However, the responsible, adult side of me says that he did the right thing by working out a deal, unpleasant as it is. And we want our Presidents to act responsibly and in an adult-like manner, with the intention of doing what seems best for the country. I would have liked to have seen him negotiate a better deal here--perhaps also securing agreement from the Republicans to allow an up-or-down vote on DADT repeal and on the Start treaty, perhaps securing agreement to get up-or-down votes on a number of long-pending judicial and other executive nominations, maybe even getting a slightly lower thresshold on the reinstated inheritance tax. But, of course, I don't know what went into the negotiations here, and I don't know the full amount of leverage each side had, so it's not appropriate for me to Monday morning quarterback the deal.
The President did get relief for the unemployed and some addtiional stimulus-like goodies, but I don't think anyone really believes that this is an adequate substitute for a real, significant additional spending bill.
There is a lot of anger on the left aimed at Obama, but I don't know if these people really appreciate the difficulty here. The real history of this episode remains to be written, but for the time being, I have some degrree of confidence that the President made a difficult choice, but probably the responsible choice. It may weaken his and the Democrats' chances in 2012, but I think he took that into account as well.
Virtually every decision the Bush Administration made was politically motivated (that is, after all, why Karl Rove was, until near the end, the head of domestic policy in the White House), rather than policy-motivated. And look what the result of that was. Finally, we get a President who is smart, understands how to seek and deal with advice, hard-working, policy-oriented, and determined to do the right thing. Unfortunately, in this ugly era, and given the current partisanship-on-steroids, warlike Republican Party, that's not exactly a recipe for electoral success.
That would be a strong message, although I have doubts on the Democrats' ability to be heard over the obscene and disgusting noise machine that is Fox News, talk radio, the WSJ editorial page etc.
Yes, I would have found it emotionally satisfying to see Obama go to war with these assholes. I suspect Obama has been burning with rage internally over the last several months, if not the last 2 years; most everyone on the left that I know feels that way.
However, the responsible, adult side of me says that he did the right thing by working out a deal, unpleasant as it is. And we want our Presidents to act responsibly and in an adult-like manner, with the intention of doing what seems best for the country. I would have liked to have seen him negotiate a better deal here--perhaps also securing agreement from the Republicans to allow an up-or-down vote on DADT repeal and on the Start treaty, perhaps securing agreement to get up-or-down votes on a number of long-pending judicial and other executive nominations, maybe even getting a slightly lower thresshold on the reinstated inheritance tax. But, of course, I don't know what went into the negotiations here, and I don't know the full amount of leverage each side had, so it's not appropriate for me to Monday morning quarterback the deal.
The President did get relief for the unemployed and some addtiional stimulus-like goodies, but I don't think anyone really believes that this is an adequate substitute for a real, significant additional spending bill.
There is a lot of anger on the left aimed at Obama, but I don't know if these people really appreciate the difficulty here. The real history of this episode remains to be written, but for the time being, I have some degrree of confidence that the President made a difficult choice, but probably the responsible choice. It may weaken his and the Democrats' chances in 2012, but I think he took that into account as well.
Virtually every decision the Bush Administration made was politically motivated (that is, after all, why Karl Rove was, until near the end, the head of domestic policy in the White House), rather than policy-motivated. And look what the result of that was. Finally, we get a President who is smart, understands how to seek and deal with advice, hard-working, policy-oriented, and determined to do the right thing. Unfortunately, in this ugly era, and given the current partisanship-on-steroids, warlike Republican Party, that's not exactly a recipe for electoral success.
Elites
Gary Bauer writes an opinion piece complaining about comments made by public figures to the effect that we shouldn't blame all Muslims for the acts of terrorism committed (or attempted to be committed) by the relatively few extremists in that religion. Apparently, Bauer thinks it's not only ok, but mandated, to target the entire U.S. Moslem community for the attempted "Christmas Tree" bombing in Portland, Oregon recently.
Bauer criticizes "elites" for being overly-sensitive to the feelings of minority communities. Specifically called out for criticism is the Mayor of Portland, a fellow with that great old American name of Sam Adams, who Bauer labels a "political elite", and General George Casey. Both Adams and Casey ran afoul of Bauer by reminding folks that it was unfair to blame the entire religion on the acts of a few.
Aside from the total stupidity of Bauer's piece, I'm becoming increasingly interested in the right's reliance on the "elite" label. It seems to have become standard for conservative columnists, bloggers, politicians and activists to pin this label on anyone who says anything with which they disagree. The word is fast losing any meaning.
Bauer's use of the word is a case in point. We used to think of "elites" as people born into wealth and, a bit more recently, people who were educated at a small, select group of "elite" colleges and universities, principally including the Ivy League schools. Whether one's college education was a useful benchmark for identying a class of people was, of course, always suspect. Bauer, however, apparently has a very different take on the term. Sam Adams, according to Wikipedia, is a graduate of the University of Oregon, a fine institution I'm sure, but hardly one that falls into the traditional category of "elite" colleges. I know nothing about his family background (nor, I'm sure, does Bauer), but I'm guessing that he was raised in Oregon--not exactly a hotbed of the "elite" class. And what, in any event, is a "political elite", as Bauer described Adams? Could this term have any meaning whatsoever? Adams has been Mayor for 2 years, and before that he was a City Commissioner for 4 years. Does this put him in the elite ranks of politicians? If Adams is a "political elite", aren't Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint as well? Who exactly wouldn't be?
And General George Casey is a West Point graduate whose father was a career army officer, rising to the rank of Major General. Obviously, Casey has risen to a very high rank in the military; because there are relatively few Generals who achieve as high a position as General Casey, one could reasonably describe him as achieving "elite" status within the military. But Bauer intends the term to be pejorative, so he has a different definition in mind.
All of this is by way of saying that Bauer is but an example of language, as used on the right, running amok. Conservatives describe someone as an "elite" in order to dismiss that person's opinion or expressed point of view without having to address the merits; it's an ad hominum attack, and an incredibly divisive one. That the word has no clear meaning makes it easy for Bauer and his ilk to ascribe it to just about anyone whose opinion they dislike. And they are banking on the fact that most people in this country don't think of themselves as "elites" and viscerally dislike, resent or distrust anyone they think is an "elite". This feeds off of, and in turn feeds, the growing anti-intellectualism of this country.
Is there a silver lining in all of this? Perhaps a small one. Some terms are overused and abused to the point where they lose all meaning and cease to have any emotional or other impact on the listener. It's quite possible that this is happening to the term "elite". It's almost like calling someone a "socialist"; does this impress anyone at all other than the already rabid and ignorant right wing fringe? And as the word continues to be used, at some point or points, users are going to be put on the spot and asked to define the term. When this happened recently to McCain, he naturally made a fool of himself.
Bauer criticizes "elites" for being overly-sensitive to the feelings of minority communities. Specifically called out for criticism is the Mayor of Portland, a fellow with that great old American name of Sam Adams, who Bauer labels a "political elite", and General George Casey. Both Adams and Casey ran afoul of Bauer by reminding folks that it was unfair to blame the entire religion on the acts of a few.
Aside from the total stupidity of Bauer's piece, I'm becoming increasingly interested in the right's reliance on the "elite" label. It seems to have become standard for conservative columnists, bloggers, politicians and activists to pin this label on anyone who says anything with which they disagree. The word is fast losing any meaning.
Bauer's use of the word is a case in point. We used to think of "elites" as people born into wealth and, a bit more recently, people who were educated at a small, select group of "elite" colleges and universities, principally including the Ivy League schools. Whether one's college education was a useful benchmark for identying a class of people was, of course, always suspect. Bauer, however, apparently has a very different take on the term. Sam Adams, according to Wikipedia, is a graduate of the University of Oregon, a fine institution I'm sure, but hardly one that falls into the traditional category of "elite" colleges. I know nothing about his family background (nor, I'm sure, does Bauer), but I'm guessing that he was raised in Oregon--not exactly a hotbed of the "elite" class. And what, in any event, is a "political elite", as Bauer described Adams? Could this term have any meaning whatsoever? Adams has been Mayor for 2 years, and before that he was a City Commissioner for 4 years. Does this put him in the elite ranks of politicians? If Adams is a "political elite", aren't Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint as well? Who exactly wouldn't be?
And General George Casey is a West Point graduate whose father was a career army officer, rising to the rank of Major General. Obviously, Casey has risen to a very high rank in the military; because there are relatively few Generals who achieve as high a position as General Casey, one could reasonably describe him as achieving "elite" status within the military. But Bauer intends the term to be pejorative, so he has a different definition in mind.
All of this is by way of saying that Bauer is but an example of language, as used on the right, running amok. Conservatives describe someone as an "elite" in order to dismiss that person's opinion or expressed point of view without having to address the merits; it's an ad hominum attack, and an incredibly divisive one. That the word has no clear meaning makes it easy for Bauer and his ilk to ascribe it to just about anyone whose opinion they dislike. And they are banking on the fact that most people in this country don't think of themselves as "elites" and viscerally dislike, resent or distrust anyone they think is an "elite". This feeds off of, and in turn feeds, the growing anti-intellectualism of this country.
Is there a silver lining in all of this? Perhaps a small one. Some terms are overused and abused to the point where they lose all meaning and cease to have any emotional or other impact on the listener. It's quite possible that this is happening to the term "elite". It's almost like calling someone a "socialist"; does this impress anyone at all other than the already rabid and ignorant right wing fringe? And as the word continues to be used, at some point or points, users are going to be put on the spot and asked to define the term. When this happened recently to McCain, he naturally made a fool of himself.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Deficit Commission
I read that Congressman Paul Ryan, a member of the deficit commission, did not vote for the proposed plan, even though it has generally been described as "center right", for two reasons: (1) it retains the Health Care Reform Act, instead of proposing repeal, and (2) it doesn't adopt his pet proposal to turn Medicare into a voucher program under which beneficiaries would be given a set amount to go out and purchase medical insurance from private insurers.
The concept of this sort of commission is that members get in a room, hammer out compromises and reach a consensus based on everyone giving a bit. It would appear that, because Ryan didn't get others to endorse 2 items on his agenda, he won't go along. In other words, Ryan was looking for the commission to adopt his proposal, and he had no intention of compromising. It may well be that other commissioners were equally unwilling to compromise; I don't know. Presumably, the HCA was a political "third rail" issue for Ryan, whatever he or other commissioners may feel about its deficit-reducing efficacy; he can't be seen as supporting the law in any fashion. I understand that. However, making Medicare into a voucher system (essentially, privatizing it) a sticking point seems incredibly inflexible.
The truth is, since the proposal includes certain tax increases, Republicans were never going to support it. The whole exercise seems designed to emphasize Republican intransigence rather than to actually come up with a plan that would have any chance of bi-partisan support.
I have to say that I don't understand how turning Medicare into a voucher system improves the system. I get that privatization and the preference in all circumstances for private sector activity over public sector activity is an article of religious faith for comtemporary conservatives and, therefore, facts don't reall matter to them here. However, it would seem logical that, if you build in an additional level of private sector profit-taking (which would be the case of health insurance for the elderly were moved into the private insurance market) you will either increase the cost of the insurance or reduce the benefits; someone--and that would be the consumer and/or the taxpayer--will have to pay for the private companies' profits. Would the extra cost represented by private insurers' profits be balanced out by increased efficiencies/savings resulting from the movement to the private sector? Possibly, but I doubt it. Medicare surely has some inefficiencies--a significant amount of fraud on the part of private sector health care providers being one of them--but these can be reduced by better administration and a relatively modest investment in enforcement and anti-fraud resources. Private health insurers will, undoubtedly, run somewhat more efficiently, but we all have seen the other significant way in which private health insurance companies cut costs-by denying coverage, delaying payments, underpaying, underresourcing customer service, etc.
I don't mean to demonize private health insurers (they don't need me to do that). But it's just a fact of life that the profit motive pushes large consumer volume businesses to "cheat" on expenses/payouts, whatever other cost-cutting measures they may adopt.
This religious mania for privatization proceeds regardless of the facts (see school vouchers as an example), because Republicans and conservatives are unwilling to accept that in certain circumstances, the government may be a more desirable provider of services than the private sector, even when the evidence points to such a result.
The concept of this sort of commission is that members get in a room, hammer out compromises and reach a consensus based on everyone giving a bit. It would appear that, because Ryan didn't get others to endorse 2 items on his agenda, he won't go along. In other words, Ryan was looking for the commission to adopt his proposal, and he had no intention of compromising. It may well be that other commissioners were equally unwilling to compromise; I don't know. Presumably, the HCA was a political "third rail" issue for Ryan, whatever he or other commissioners may feel about its deficit-reducing efficacy; he can't be seen as supporting the law in any fashion. I understand that. However, making Medicare into a voucher system (essentially, privatizing it) a sticking point seems incredibly inflexible.
The truth is, since the proposal includes certain tax increases, Republicans were never going to support it. The whole exercise seems designed to emphasize Republican intransigence rather than to actually come up with a plan that would have any chance of bi-partisan support.
I have to say that I don't understand how turning Medicare into a voucher system improves the system. I get that privatization and the preference in all circumstances for private sector activity over public sector activity is an article of religious faith for comtemporary conservatives and, therefore, facts don't reall matter to them here. However, it would seem logical that, if you build in an additional level of private sector profit-taking (which would be the case of health insurance for the elderly were moved into the private insurance market) you will either increase the cost of the insurance or reduce the benefits; someone--and that would be the consumer and/or the taxpayer--will have to pay for the private companies' profits. Would the extra cost represented by private insurers' profits be balanced out by increased efficiencies/savings resulting from the movement to the private sector? Possibly, but I doubt it. Medicare surely has some inefficiencies--a significant amount of fraud on the part of private sector health care providers being one of them--but these can be reduced by better administration and a relatively modest investment in enforcement and anti-fraud resources. Private health insurers will, undoubtedly, run somewhat more efficiently, but we all have seen the other significant way in which private health insurance companies cut costs-by denying coverage, delaying payments, underpaying, underresourcing customer service, etc.
I don't mean to demonize private health insurers (they don't need me to do that). But it's just a fact of life that the profit motive pushes large consumer volume businesses to "cheat" on expenses/payouts, whatever other cost-cutting measures they may adopt.
This religious mania for privatization proceeds regardless of the facts (see school vouchers as an example), because Republicans and conservatives are unwilling to accept that in certain circumstances, the government may be a more desirable provider of services than the private sector, even when the evidence points to such a result.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
James Inhofe is a religious bigot
I read a report that Senator James Inhofe (reputed to be one of the stupider members of the U.S. Senate) has announced that he will refuse to participate in Tulsa's parade this season because the City of Tulsa insists on calling it a "Holiday" Parade rather than a "Christmas" Parade. I can only assume that Inhofe believes that this parad is only for the Christians in the City and that Jews, Moslems, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, etc. are not welcome to participate.
Reading the comments on websites when this issue surfaces every year is an eye-opener. The typical anti-"holiday" comment accuses the pro-"holiday" side of being "haters" or "politically correct". Neither is really accurate.
Let's remember that the "Happy Holidays" movement started at major retail stores, such as Wal-Mart, the Gap, etc. Since their real religion is sales and profits, quite understandably, they didn't want to offend potential customers who weren't Christian (yes, there are non-Christians in this country, Inhofe) or make them feel excluded from their advertising/marketing campaigns. Thus, instead of referring to Christmas, they refer to "Holidays", and everyone can feel included in the sentiment. Government, at all levels, thought this was a good idea and adopted the "Happy Holidays" approach to the Christmas season (yes, that's what I still call it, even though I'm Jewish).
This seemed totally innocuous, but then Bill O'Reilly, that permanently aggrieved soul, got hold of the issue and decided to call it a "war" on Christmas. O'Reilly's argument was, since 80% of the country is Christian, the rest of us should just learn to live with it. (By extension, I guess O'Reilly thinks I should start attending church on Sundays.)
Of course, this is as phony a "war" as there is. Those of us who appreciatethe inclusiveness of the gesture of using the term "holidays" in the public sphere don't "hate" Christians or Christmas. If my favorite store put a "Merry Christmas" sign in the window instead of a "Happy Holidays" sign, I wouldn't refuse to go in; I don't much care and I long ago accepted my minority status in this country. (On the other hand, if I knew that the store put up the Christmas sign as some sort of deliberate, political rejection of the "Happy Holidays" inclusive sentiment, I would be offended and might consider not patronizing that store.)
The suggestion made by some this time last year that stores that use "holidays" instead of "Christmas" be boycotted was asinine, as well as highly offensive and, dare I say, totally inconsistent with the spirit that is supposed to be a part of this Christian holiday. Let's hope this isn't repeated this year.
As a number of people have commented every year when this issue arises, why is it that certain members of the dominant religious and cultural group in this country feel so aggrieved and threatened by this modest gesture of universality and inclusiveness? How did the Inhofes and O'Reilly's become so paranoid and defensive about their religious identity that they feel it necessary to constantly remind us non-Christians that it's their country.
Reading the comments on websites when this issue surfaces every year is an eye-opener. The typical anti-"holiday" comment accuses the pro-"holiday" side of being "haters" or "politically correct". Neither is really accurate.
Let's remember that the "Happy Holidays" movement started at major retail stores, such as Wal-Mart, the Gap, etc. Since their real religion is sales and profits, quite understandably, they didn't want to offend potential customers who weren't Christian (yes, there are non-Christians in this country, Inhofe) or make them feel excluded from their advertising/marketing campaigns. Thus, instead of referring to Christmas, they refer to "Holidays", and everyone can feel included in the sentiment. Government, at all levels, thought this was a good idea and adopted the "Happy Holidays" approach to the Christmas season (yes, that's what I still call it, even though I'm Jewish).
This seemed totally innocuous, but then Bill O'Reilly, that permanently aggrieved soul, got hold of the issue and decided to call it a "war" on Christmas. O'Reilly's argument was, since 80% of the country is Christian, the rest of us should just learn to live with it. (By extension, I guess O'Reilly thinks I should start attending church on Sundays.)
Of course, this is as phony a "war" as there is. Those of us who appreciatethe inclusiveness of the gesture of using the term "holidays" in the public sphere don't "hate" Christians or Christmas. If my favorite store put a "Merry Christmas" sign in the window instead of a "Happy Holidays" sign, I wouldn't refuse to go in; I don't much care and I long ago accepted my minority status in this country. (On the other hand, if I knew that the store put up the Christmas sign as some sort of deliberate, political rejection of the "Happy Holidays" inclusive sentiment, I would be offended and might consider not patronizing that store.)
The suggestion made by some this time last year that stores that use "holidays" instead of "Christmas" be boycotted was asinine, as well as highly offensive and, dare I say, totally inconsistent with the spirit that is supposed to be a part of this Christian holiday. Let's hope this isn't repeated this year.
As a number of people have commented every year when this issue arises, why is it that certain members of the dominant religious and cultural group in this country feel so aggrieved and threatened by this modest gesture of universality and inclusiveness? How did the Inhofes and O'Reilly's become so paranoid and defensive about their religious identity that they feel it necessary to constantly remind us non-Christians that it's their country.
Newt
Is there any prominent political figure more fatuous and full of hot air than Newt Gingrich? Per CNN, Newt's 12-step program to "replace the left" includes:
"[H]e takes aim at unemployment benefits and proposes that unemployment benefits be turned into a fund to require training programs for the unemployed, illustrates a plan replacing health care reforms enacted by the Obama administration through limiting Medicaid, and spells out the need to develop "benchmarks for helping businesses and entrepreneurs create high paying jobs in competition with China, India, and Germany…"
In his 12th and final step, Gingrich sounds a rallying cry to public schools from K-12 to the collegiate level. He will encourage them to insist on an annual course covering the Declaration of Independence, affirming that "The time has come to reassert that we are Americans, and America is a learned civilization." "
Obviously Newt thinks the solution to our current unemployment crisis is.....retraining! Because, of course, there must be plenty of jobs out there, our unemployed workers just don't have the right skills. First class: How to pick fruit.
"Benchmarks" for helping businesses create high paying jobs. This is the typical contemporary Republican "plan"--not exactly full of specifics, but Gingrich puts his Ph.D to good use, using a classy word like "benchmarks".
And an annual course covering the Declaration of Independence? Because it's not sufficient to cover this in the U.S. History course that is required in nearly every state for high school graduation? We need to have a full course? I have nothing against the Declaration of Independence, but I venture a guess that virtually every educator in this country will tell us that there are far more productive ways to utilize public education resources. And if we are to go down this road, far better to require students to spend a few weeks studying the Constitution, which is, after all, unlike the Declaration, the document which provides a structure for our system of government.
I particularly enjoy Newt's "The time has come to reassert that we are Americans, and America is a learned civilization." Does anyone have any idea what he's talking about? This sounds awfully defensive.
"[H]e takes aim at unemployment benefits and proposes that unemployment benefits be turned into a fund to require training programs for the unemployed, illustrates a plan replacing health care reforms enacted by the Obama administration through limiting Medicaid, and spells out the need to develop "benchmarks for helping businesses and entrepreneurs create high paying jobs in competition with China, India, and Germany…"
In his 12th and final step, Gingrich sounds a rallying cry to public schools from K-12 to the collegiate level. He will encourage them to insist on an annual course covering the Declaration of Independence, affirming that "The time has come to reassert that we are Americans, and America is a learned civilization." "
Obviously Newt thinks the solution to our current unemployment crisis is.....retraining! Because, of course, there must be plenty of jobs out there, our unemployed workers just don't have the right skills. First class: How to pick fruit.
"Benchmarks" for helping businesses create high paying jobs. This is the typical contemporary Republican "plan"--not exactly full of specifics, but Gingrich puts his Ph.D to good use, using a classy word like "benchmarks".
And an annual course covering the Declaration of Independence? Because it's not sufficient to cover this in the U.S. History course that is required in nearly every state for high school graduation? We need to have a full course? I have nothing against the Declaration of Independence, but I venture a guess that virtually every educator in this country will tell us that there are far more productive ways to utilize public education resources. And if we are to go down this road, far better to require students to spend a few weeks studying the Constitution, which is, after all, unlike the Declaration, the document which provides a structure for our system of government.
I particularly enjoy Newt's "The time has come to reassert that we are Americans, and America is a learned civilization." Does anyone have any idea what he's talking about? This sounds awfully defensive.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Republican Crazies
Two events today which are basically so over-the-top they make my head spin:
1. Representative Eric Cantor apparently has forgotten all of the U.S. history he learned in high school and college. Today he endorsed a constitutional amendment that would allow a vote of 2/3 of the state legislatures to veto Federal legislation. This, along with repeal of the 17th Amendment (having U.S. Senators elected by popular vote rather than by the vote of the state legislatures) are awful procedural ideas. The first would basically create chaos in the Federal system and significantly undermine the effectiveness and authority of Congress. The second is undemocratic and would return the U.S. Senate to the bad old days when Senators were creatures of their state's corrupt state legislatures. (By the way, my sense is that state legislatures today are only marginally improved over those bad old days. They are still filled with corrupt, venal and often stupid people, easily corruptible and underpaid. How many people even know who their state legislators are?)
These "back to the states" concepts seem to be getting a lot more attention these days. They seem to be a poorly-thought out (to put it mildly) response to a perceived problem. Republicans don't like that the Democrats had a majority in Congress and, therefore, passed legislation favored by Democrats and opposed by REpublicans. So, the response of Cantor and friends is not the obvious "just work to elect more Republicans", but rather, let's change how we elect Senators and who gets to make laws". In other words, since Republicans didn't win a majority, let's change how its all done. Absolutely, breathtakingly stupid.
2. Representative Steve King of Iowa has done all of us the valuable service of finally letting down the guard and exposing the racism that underlies some of the contemporary dissatisfaction on the right. In opposing a bill to fund the settlement of a discrimination lawsuit brought by black farmers against the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, King says:
"Figure this out, Madame Speaker: We have a very, very urban Senator, Barack Obama, who has decided he's going to run for president, and what does he do? He introduces legislation to create a whole new Pigford claim."
"Urban", of course, in context means "black". King clearly doesn't mean "city dweller". He has basically accused Obama of supporting this settlement because he's black. King also claims that the settlement is "slavery reparations", although it has absolutely nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with discriminatory treatment of black farmers in the post World War II period.
I like to think that I am reasonably sceptical of claims of racism. I discount allegations that the "tea party" is really about racism. I certainly think that there is an element of racism there, mixed in with and probably unseparable from a generalised fear on the part of tea partiers that the country and the culture is changing and leaving them behind. A part of that is symbolized, at least, by the election as President of a black man with a foreign-sounding name and a background very different from the typical tea partier. Yeah, there's a bit of racims there, but I don't think that's what the movement is really about.
King's statement, however, is different. I have no hesitation labelling it as "racist". He could hardly be more explicit. Now, all I really know about King is that he's a right-wing crazy. I know nothing about his background or what he might be like to socialize with. Accordingly, I don't have a clue as to what his feelings about African-Americans are or whether he could fairly be termed a racist. What I do know is that his comments today are racist. In the nearly two years of the Obama Administration, there has absolutely been nothing to evidence any intention by the President to adopt policies which favor black citizens because the President is black. For King to assert, obviously without evidence, that this is what is motivating the President, is despicable.
1. Representative Eric Cantor apparently has forgotten all of the U.S. history he learned in high school and college. Today he endorsed a constitutional amendment that would allow a vote of 2/3 of the state legislatures to veto Federal legislation. This, along with repeal of the 17th Amendment (having U.S. Senators elected by popular vote rather than by the vote of the state legislatures) are awful procedural ideas. The first would basically create chaos in the Federal system and significantly undermine the effectiveness and authority of Congress. The second is undemocratic and would return the U.S. Senate to the bad old days when Senators were creatures of their state's corrupt state legislatures. (By the way, my sense is that state legislatures today are only marginally improved over those bad old days. They are still filled with corrupt, venal and often stupid people, easily corruptible and underpaid. How many people even know who their state legislators are?)
These "back to the states" concepts seem to be getting a lot more attention these days. They seem to be a poorly-thought out (to put it mildly) response to a perceived problem. Republicans don't like that the Democrats had a majority in Congress and, therefore, passed legislation favored by Democrats and opposed by REpublicans. So, the response of Cantor and friends is not the obvious "just work to elect more Republicans", but rather, let's change how we elect Senators and who gets to make laws". In other words, since Republicans didn't win a majority, let's change how its all done. Absolutely, breathtakingly stupid.
2. Representative Steve King of Iowa has done all of us the valuable service of finally letting down the guard and exposing the racism that underlies some of the contemporary dissatisfaction on the right. In opposing a bill to fund the settlement of a discrimination lawsuit brought by black farmers against the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, King says:
"Figure this out, Madame Speaker: We have a very, very urban Senator, Barack Obama, who has decided he's going to run for president, and what does he do? He introduces legislation to create a whole new Pigford claim."
"Urban", of course, in context means "black". King clearly doesn't mean "city dweller". He has basically accused Obama of supporting this settlement because he's black. King also claims that the settlement is "slavery reparations", although it has absolutely nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with discriminatory treatment of black farmers in the post World War II period.
I like to think that I am reasonably sceptical of claims of racism. I discount allegations that the "tea party" is really about racism. I certainly think that there is an element of racism there, mixed in with and probably unseparable from a generalised fear on the part of tea partiers that the country and the culture is changing and leaving them behind. A part of that is symbolized, at least, by the election as President of a black man with a foreign-sounding name and a background very different from the typical tea partier. Yeah, there's a bit of racims there, but I don't think that's what the movement is really about.
King's statement, however, is different. I have no hesitation labelling it as "racist". He could hardly be more explicit. Now, all I really know about King is that he's a right-wing crazy. I know nothing about his background or what he might be like to socialize with. Accordingly, I don't have a clue as to what his feelings about African-Americans are or whether he could fairly be termed a racist. What I do know is that his comments today are racist. In the nearly two years of the Obama Administration, there has absolutely been nothing to evidence any intention by the President to adopt policies which favor black citizens because the President is black. For King to assert, obviously without evidence, that this is what is motivating the President, is despicable.
Renters of the World, Unite!
Per ThinkProgress by way of Jonathan Chait, Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips said on the Tea Party Nation hosted radio program:
"The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners."
It's hard to know how to respond to this sort of thinking other than to simply laugh. At the risk of taking this seriously, though, a couple of points are worth mentioning:
1. I assume that Phillips is referring to real property, e.g., land, houses, condos, buildings, etc. But plenty of people don't own their own residence but do own substantial amounts of stocks, mutual funds, Treasury bonds, etc. (Ownership of a New York City cooperative apartment presents its own complication.) Would that be sufficient to satisfy Phillips that these people have a "vested stake" in the community? Back in my college days (early 1970's), I had a Political Science 101 professor who told us that there would be no revolution in this country because so many of the citizens here were invested in stocks and, therefore, had a vested interest in the stability of the system.
2. How much property ownership would be enough to satisfy Phillips? Will it matter how much your mortgage is?
3. I think Phillips has this backward. Poor people, who generally don't own real property, are much more vested in the community that wealthy people are. Poor people can't really go anywhere else; they can't pick up and move to Paris or South America, or even Canada. They are stuck here as citizens and residents, for better or worse. On the other hand, a very wealthy person with homes in the U.S., the Bahamas and the South of France can relocate outside the U.S. at any time. Arguably, those people are less vested in this country because of their ability to reside elsewhere. Perhaps we should flip Phillips' approach and deny voting rights to the super-wealthy.
4. The poor are also much more dependent upon government entitlement programs (Medicaid, Social Security, etc.) than are the wealthy, and in this sense they are much more invested in the country.
By the way, I heard Mark Levin raise this same issue about 18 months or 2 years ago, shortly after Obama's election, so I don't think Phillips is simply an outlier on this point. I wonder what Sarah Palin thinks of this?
"The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners."
It's hard to know how to respond to this sort of thinking other than to simply laugh. At the risk of taking this seriously, though, a couple of points are worth mentioning:
1. I assume that Phillips is referring to real property, e.g., land, houses, condos, buildings, etc. But plenty of people don't own their own residence but do own substantial amounts of stocks, mutual funds, Treasury bonds, etc. (Ownership of a New York City cooperative apartment presents its own complication.) Would that be sufficient to satisfy Phillips that these people have a "vested stake" in the community? Back in my college days (early 1970's), I had a Political Science 101 professor who told us that there would be no revolution in this country because so many of the citizens here were invested in stocks and, therefore, had a vested interest in the stability of the system.
2. How much property ownership would be enough to satisfy Phillips? Will it matter how much your mortgage is?
3. I think Phillips has this backward. Poor people, who generally don't own real property, are much more vested in the community that wealthy people are. Poor people can't really go anywhere else; they can't pick up and move to Paris or South America, or even Canada. They are stuck here as citizens and residents, for better or worse. On the other hand, a very wealthy person with homes in the U.S., the Bahamas and the South of France can relocate outside the U.S. at any time. Arguably, those people are less vested in this country because of their ability to reside elsewhere. Perhaps we should flip Phillips' approach and deny voting rights to the super-wealthy.
4. The poor are also much more dependent upon government entitlement programs (Medicaid, Social Security, etc.) than are the wealthy, and in this sense they are much more invested in the country.
By the way, I heard Mark Levin raise this same issue about 18 months or 2 years ago, shortly after Obama's election, so I don't think Phillips is simply an outlier on this point. I wonder what Sarah Palin thinks of this?
Monday, November 29, 2010
Immigration Debate Question
Steve King, Congressman from Iowa, who is one of the more extreme of the Republican know-nothings in Congres, is apparently about to become the Chairman of the House subcommittee responsible for immigration legislation. As such, he will undoubtedly play a significant role in driving more Hispanic voters into the arms of the Democratic Party.
I have read in a number of places that one of the "reforms" that King and his allies want to achieve is either a constitutional amendment or a re-interpretation of the 14th Amendment to deny birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants who have children here. Sounds Simon Legreeish.
But, although I am generally sympathetic to efforts to genuinely reform our immigration laws and systems in order to better regulate the flow of immigrants and to provide a pathway to citizenship, I really don't get why the birthright citizenship issue is so heatedly disdained by the left. It seems to me that, although this policy might once have made sense for the U.S., perhaps it no longer does. What national interest or value is served by automatically conferring citizenship on a child simply because he or she happens to be born here? Doesn't this incentivize illegal immigration, something I think we could all agree we should be trying to discourage? I don't think any other Western nation (or, for that matter, any nation) has a similar policy.
If anyone reads this, I would be happy to be instructed in why the reversal of this policy is unfair, immoral or bad policy.
I have read in a number of places that one of the "reforms" that King and his allies want to achieve is either a constitutional amendment or a re-interpretation of the 14th Amendment to deny birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants who have children here. Sounds Simon Legreeish.
But, although I am generally sympathetic to efforts to genuinely reform our immigration laws and systems in order to better regulate the flow of immigrants and to provide a pathway to citizenship, I really don't get why the birthright citizenship issue is so heatedly disdained by the left. It seems to me that, although this policy might once have made sense for the U.S., perhaps it no longer does. What national interest or value is served by automatically conferring citizenship on a child simply because he or she happens to be born here? Doesn't this incentivize illegal immigration, something I think we could all agree we should be trying to discourage? I don't think any other Western nation (or, for that matter, any nation) has a similar policy.
If anyone reads this, I would be happy to be instructed in why the reversal of this policy is unfair, immoral or bad policy.
Road Rules Part I
As I get older (I'm now 58), I get more cantankerous about certain things. Bad behavior on the roads and in public transportation just makes me crazy now. Where to start?
How about the proper etiquette for driving in the left lane on a highway? My road rule is: If you're not driving in the left lane faster than the traffic in the lane to your immediate right, then you don't belong in the left lane.
I tend to drive fairly fast on the Interstates--between 75-80 when conditions allow. I tend to stay in the left lane, but will get out of the way when a car doing 85-90 comes up behind me. I think that's too fast, but it's not my concern, and I'll move out of the way.
But too often, I find myself behind a driver who is moving at 60, 65, 70 and won't move over. I don't know what the thinking is--maybe he or she thinks that they are going as fast as anyone should go, and fuck anyone who wants to go faster. Maybe they never learned to look in the rearview mirror and are oblivious to traffic piling up behind them. Whatever.
How about the proper etiquette for driving in the left lane on a highway? My road rule is: If you're not driving in the left lane faster than the traffic in the lane to your immediate right, then you don't belong in the left lane.
I tend to drive fairly fast on the Interstates--between 75-80 when conditions allow. I tend to stay in the left lane, but will get out of the way when a car doing 85-90 comes up behind me. I think that's too fast, but it's not my concern, and I'll move out of the way.
But too often, I find myself behind a driver who is moving at 60, 65, 70 and won't move over. I don't know what the thinking is--maybe he or she thinks that they are going as fast as anyone should go, and fuck anyone who wants to go faster. Maybe they never learned to look in the rearview mirror and are oblivious to traffic piling up behind them. Whatever.
New Start
Is there anything lamer than Susan Collins publicly begging for an endorsement of the Treaty by the former Presidents Bush? Of course, the elder is no expert (although he had the smarts to hire and rely on experts in foreign policy), and the younger wouldn't have a clue about the merits of the Treaty. So what is Collins saying? Certainly not that she is awaiting the expert judgment of the Bushes. I read this as her saying: I'm a moral coward and afraid to vote contrary to the highly partisan agenda insisted on by McConnell and Kyl. If the two living Republican ex-Presidents both tell me it's ok to vote for the treaty, maybe I will.
This is just pathetic, although probably no more pathetic than her colleagues who know that this Treaty should be approved but are afraid to speak out.
On a related front, I just read Jennifer Rubin's Commentary blog. She says that Senator Kit Bond claims that the verification procedures in the Treaty are insufficient. Her conclusion:
"But what of the argument that without New START, we won’t have a verification system in place? Go get a better treaty, Republicans would respond. That’s no easy order, especially for an administration that contorts itself to avoid stressing its new relationship with the Russians. In sum, Obama negotiated a not-very-good treaty and now can’t get it through the Senate. Sort of a mess, isn’t it? Welcome to the Obama foreign policy brain trust."
In other words, Obama should have negotiated better terms, so let's vote this down and go back to seek a better deal. Classic Monday morning quarterbacking: There is no way to determine if a better deal could have been secured, and it's all too easy to make this assertion. Even if it is true that the terms could have been better, that's not necessarily a reason to reject the treaty, particularly since, if defeated, it's extremely unlikely that Russia can be engaged to improve the deal in the near future.
I have absolutely no expertise in this area and, therefore, as with any technical subject, must rely on the judgment of experts. The little that I have read that contains any specific criticism of the Treaty appears to be effectively countered by others with some expertise. Rubin cites Bond asserting two problems---the lack of restriction on Russia's multi-warhead missiles and the weakness of the verification procedures. I believe I've seen the former issue taken apart by experts at the time that Mitt Romney raised it, and I suspect that the latter objection is also flawed.
The objections that I have seen to the Treaty appear, at least to me, to be nothing more than complaints that the Treaty isn't totally one-sided in our favor. These seem to be excuses, rather than reasons, for opposing the Treaty. With the weight of the traditional foreign policy establishment and the military leadership supporting the approval of the Treaty, it's simply astonishing that the Republicans in Congress would make an issue of this. This is yet further evidence that the Congressional Republicans have adopted a deliberate strategy of opposing anything Obama is for, for the sole purpose of denying him any "victories". Since I can't see this Treaty as a campaign issue one way or the other, it's hard to explain the approach here, except to say that this fits into an overall strategy of saying "no" to everything, and trying to make the Federal Government on Obama's watch as disfunctional as possible. Words can't even describe how awful these people are.
This is just pathetic, although probably no more pathetic than her colleagues who know that this Treaty should be approved but are afraid to speak out.
On a related front, I just read Jennifer Rubin's Commentary blog. She says that Senator Kit Bond claims that the verification procedures in the Treaty are insufficient. Her conclusion:
"But what of the argument that without New START, we won’t have a verification system in place? Go get a better treaty, Republicans would respond. That’s no easy order, especially for an administration that contorts itself to avoid stressing its new relationship with the Russians. In sum, Obama negotiated a not-very-good treaty and now can’t get it through the Senate. Sort of a mess, isn’t it? Welcome to the Obama foreign policy brain trust."
In other words, Obama should have negotiated better terms, so let's vote this down and go back to seek a better deal. Classic Monday morning quarterbacking: There is no way to determine if a better deal could have been secured, and it's all too easy to make this assertion. Even if it is true that the terms could have been better, that's not necessarily a reason to reject the treaty, particularly since, if defeated, it's extremely unlikely that Russia can be engaged to improve the deal in the near future.
I have absolutely no expertise in this area and, therefore, as with any technical subject, must rely on the judgment of experts. The little that I have read that contains any specific criticism of the Treaty appears to be effectively countered by others with some expertise. Rubin cites Bond asserting two problems---the lack of restriction on Russia's multi-warhead missiles and the weakness of the verification procedures. I believe I've seen the former issue taken apart by experts at the time that Mitt Romney raised it, and I suspect that the latter objection is also flawed.
The objections that I have seen to the Treaty appear, at least to me, to be nothing more than complaints that the Treaty isn't totally one-sided in our favor. These seem to be excuses, rather than reasons, for opposing the Treaty. With the weight of the traditional foreign policy establishment and the military leadership supporting the approval of the Treaty, it's simply astonishing that the Republicans in Congress would make an issue of this. This is yet further evidence that the Congressional Republicans have adopted a deliberate strategy of opposing anything Obama is for, for the sole purpose of denying him any "victories". Since I can't see this Treaty as a campaign issue one way or the other, it's hard to explain the approach here, except to say that this fits into an overall strategy of saying "no" to everything, and trying to make the Federal Government on Obama's watch as disfunctional as possible. Words can't even describe how awful these people are.
McCain Mutiny
Many reports on political blogs today on what John McCain said of DADT on CNN yesterday:
"The fact is, this was a political promise made by an inexperienced President or candidate for Presidency of the United States."
That McCain's comment would refer to Obama as an "inexperienced candidate for Presidency" says a whole lot more about McCain than about Obama. Clearly, McCain still views Obama through the prism of the now 2-year old Presidential campaign. Just as clearly, McCain has not gotten over the fact that he was beaten by a candidate with relatively little national political experience.
It's not just being a "sore loser", as a number of commentators have said. McCain has, both before and after the election, acted as though the Presidency was something he was entitled to--presumably by virtue of his long service as a prisoner of war and in Congress. He has clearly been deeply resentful of Obama on a personal level.
His flip-flopping on the DADT issue is shameless and shameful. It's almost as though his opposition to repeal is motivated by Obama's support of it: Whatever he's for, I'm agin. And, of course, his branding of the effort to repeal DADT as "political" is absurd (and not the first time that McCain's pot has called the kettle black). As Steve Benen writes, this was part of a policy agenda, and, in any event, repeal had been a key element of the Democratic agenda before Obama came on the scene.
Numerous bloggers have complained for the last two years that McCain appears on the Sunday morning political talk shows far more than is appropriate, given his status as the losing candidate. I've long assumed that this is only because most of his Republican colleagues refuse to go on these shows unless they are running for re-election, and McCain is always willing to appear,and therefore he becomes the default Republican invitee. Regardless, his expertise is non-existent and his political positions are so devoid of personal credibilitiy, so changeable over the years, and so obviously motivated at least in large part by his personal issues, that it's really time for Meet The Press, etc. to put him to the back of the line.
"The fact is, this was a political promise made by an inexperienced President or candidate for Presidency of the United States."
That McCain's comment would refer to Obama as an "inexperienced candidate for Presidency" says a whole lot more about McCain than about Obama. Clearly, McCain still views Obama through the prism of the now 2-year old Presidential campaign. Just as clearly, McCain has not gotten over the fact that he was beaten by a candidate with relatively little national political experience.
It's not just being a "sore loser", as a number of commentators have said. McCain has, both before and after the election, acted as though the Presidency was something he was entitled to--presumably by virtue of his long service as a prisoner of war and in Congress. He has clearly been deeply resentful of Obama on a personal level.
His flip-flopping on the DADT issue is shameless and shameful. It's almost as though his opposition to repeal is motivated by Obama's support of it: Whatever he's for, I'm agin. And, of course, his branding of the effort to repeal DADT as "political" is absurd (and not the first time that McCain's pot has called the kettle black). As Steve Benen writes, this was part of a policy agenda, and, in any event, repeal had been a key element of the Democratic agenda before Obama came on the scene.
Numerous bloggers have complained for the last two years that McCain appears on the Sunday morning political talk shows far more than is appropriate, given his status as the losing candidate. I've long assumed that this is only because most of his Republican colleagues refuse to go on these shows unless they are running for re-election, and McCain is always willing to appear,and therefore he becomes the default Republican invitee. Regardless, his expertise is non-existent and his political positions are so devoid of personal credibilitiy, so changeable over the years, and so obviously motivated at least in large part by his personal issues, that it's really time for Meet The Press, etc. to put him to the back of the line.
Tax Cuts
I have to say, although I have been a total fan and supporter of Obama thus far, I don't get the thinking on the issue of the extension of the tax cuts.
The Democrats hold the cards on this one. Unless a bill is passed by both the House and Senate and signed by Obama, the Bush tax cuts will automatically expire. Obama has the ability to say to the Republicans (politely and diplomatically, of course): Pass my preferred bill or there will be no bill, and if the tax cuts expire because you Republicans refuse to vote for a partial extension, then you will be blamed for the tax increase that will result for 95% of the taxpayers.
Republicans and their trusted sidekick, Fox News will, of course, blame the Democrats. But surely, some organization on the left can do an ad campaign accurately stating that you, the viewer, will have your taxes go up because the Republicans refused to vote for an extension of the tax cuts for nearly everyone. It's a relatively simple message which will strike home.
If it were up to me, I'd move the dividing line up from $250,000 per year to $500,000 per year, so that everyone above that line would have an increase in the marginal rates. Schumer's proposal today to move the line up to $1,000,000 has the virtue of making a better bumper sticker, but I suspect will result in substantially lower tax revenues.
This is one time that the Democrats don't need to worry about a filibuster or about losing a handful of centrist Democrats. As I said, the Administration holds all of the cards here. This position can be sold easily to the public and will shore up support on the left for Obama. To me, it seems like the clearest winner of a position that he can have.
The Democrats hold the cards on this one. Unless a bill is passed by both the House and Senate and signed by Obama, the Bush tax cuts will automatically expire. Obama has the ability to say to the Republicans (politely and diplomatically, of course): Pass my preferred bill or there will be no bill, and if the tax cuts expire because you Republicans refuse to vote for a partial extension, then you will be blamed for the tax increase that will result for 95% of the taxpayers.
Republicans and their trusted sidekick, Fox News will, of course, blame the Democrats. But surely, some organization on the left can do an ad campaign accurately stating that you, the viewer, will have your taxes go up because the Republicans refused to vote for an extension of the tax cuts for nearly everyone. It's a relatively simple message which will strike home.
If it were up to me, I'd move the dividing line up from $250,000 per year to $500,000 per year, so that everyone above that line would have an increase in the marginal rates. Schumer's proposal today to move the line up to $1,000,000 has the virtue of making a better bumper sticker, but I suspect will result in substantially lower tax revenues.
This is one time that the Democrats don't need to worry about a filibuster or about losing a handful of centrist Democrats. As I said, the Administration holds all of the cards here. This position can be sold easily to the public and will shore up support on the left for Obama. To me, it seems like the clearest winner of a position that he can have.
Palin World
In Larry King's interview with the senior Bushes, Barbara B. made a snide comment about hoping that Sarah Palin stays in Alaska. Palin, who can't seem to resist the temptation to respond to every criticism and negative comment, no matter how minor the comment or obscure the commenter, said the following on Laura Ingraham's radio show:
"I don't think the majority of Americans want to put up with the blue-bloods -- and I want to say it with all due respect because I love the Bushes -- the blue-bloods who want to pick and choose their winners instead of allowing competition."
Aside from the incredibly obvious hypocricy of the statement (She loves the Bushes--really? Even though she calls them "blue-bloods" and accuses them of anti-democratic intentions.), this seems particularly stupid to me.
First, she turns Barbara's comment into a bigger story than it was. This just draws more attention to criticism of Palin from within the Republican Party. Palin's unwillingness to hold her fire has elevated just about every criticism of her and has diminished her own standing. Getting embroiled in a public dispute with her grandchild's father--a teenager!--is hardly Presidential. Criticising Michelle Obama's efforts to publicize the problem of obesity in children is utterly pointless: she is taking on a popular First Lady (who is not directly in the front line of politics) and a serious (and non-controversial) health issue.
Second, she risks elevating this into a real feud with the Bushes. George was polite and diplomatic in his response to a question about Palin; perhaps the next time, he'll be less polite. While disliked by the Palin base of the Republican Party, George and Barbara still have the respect of a meaningful portion of the middle; as a former President, Bush the elder is generally viewed favorably by many. Attacking the ex-President and his wife won't win Palin respect outside her current base.
Third, the obvious class warfare aspect of this attack isn't likely to go down well with anyone other than her base. In recent years, George the elder's image has been much more of genial old guy, and even to some extent "regular" guy, than privileged blue blood.
Finally, does it bother anyone (other than me) that Palin's response to an expression of distaste for her as a potential candidate is to accuse the Bushes of wanting to impose their own candidate? Does she really believe that anyone who opposes her is somehow an autocrat?
I honestly have no idea what Palin's chances of winning the Republican nomination for President in 2012 are. She certainly is not doing what knowledgeable observers say is traditionally necessary for a successful candidate: learning issues, building a campaign organization with experienced operatives, reaching out to key activists in the different primary states, developing a fund-raising operation and establishing relationships with the big contributors, etc. If the traditional path to the nomination continues to be the reality, she should crash and burn early on. However, no one really knows if the conventional wisdom is still correct; a lot has changed in the Republican Party, and Palin's approach might well be the winning one in 2012.
What is clear is that Palin has to date shown no interest in attempting to reach out beyond her base and, instead, antagonizes nearly everyone else. This will be a disaster for her in the general election. At some point between now and then, perhaps professional advisors will succeed in turning her around so that she starts making appeals to the mainstream, but it's not clear to me that she is, by character, capable of doing this in an effective way. To do so, she would really need to change her personality, cease to play the victim, move away from the divisiveness of her public statements and persona, and develop some substance. I don't think it will happen.
"I don't think the majority of Americans want to put up with the blue-bloods -- and I want to say it with all due respect because I love the Bushes -- the blue-bloods who want to pick and choose their winners instead of allowing competition."
Aside from the incredibly obvious hypocricy of the statement (She loves the Bushes--really? Even though she calls them "blue-bloods" and accuses them of anti-democratic intentions.), this seems particularly stupid to me.
First, she turns Barbara's comment into a bigger story than it was. This just draws more attention to criticism of Palin from within the Republican Party. Palin's unwillingness to hold her fire has elevated just about every criticism of her and has diminished her own standing. Getting embroiled in a public dispute with her grandchild's father--a teenager!--is hardly Presidential. Criticising Michelle Obama's efforts to publicize the problem of obesity in children is utterly pointless: she is taking on a popular First Lady (who is not directly in the front line of politics) and a serious (and non-controversial) health issue.
Second, she risks elevating this into a real feud with the Bushes. George was polite and diplomatic in his response to a question about Palin; perhaps the next time, he'll be less polite. While disliked by the Palin base of the Republican Party, George and Barbara still have the respect of a meaningful portion of the middle; as a former President, Bush the elder is generally viewed favorably by many. Attacking the ex-President and his wife won't win Palin respect outside her current base.
Third, the obvious class warfare aspect of this attack isn't likely to go down well with anyone other than her base. In recent years, George the elder's image has been much more of genial old guy, and even to some extent "regular" guy, than privileged blue blood.
Finally, does it bother anyone (other than me) that Palin's response to an expression of distaste for her as a potential candidate is to accuse the Bushes of wanting to impose their own candidate? Does she really believe that anyone who opposes her is somehow an autocrat?
I honestly have no idea what Palin's chances of winning the Republican nomination for President in 2012 are. She certainly is not doing what knowledgeable observers say is traditionally necessary for a successful candidate: learning issues, building a campaign organization with experienced operatives, reaching out to key activists in the different primary states, developing a fund-raising operation and establishing relationships with the big contributors, etc. If the traditional path to the nomination continues to be the reality, she should crash and burn early on. However, no one really knows if the conventional wisdom is still correct; a lot has changed in the Republican Party, and Palin's approach might well be the winning one in 2012.
What is clear is that Palin has to date shown no interest in attempting to reach out beyond her base and, instead, antagonizes nearly everyone else. This will be a disaster for her in the general election. At some point between now and then, perhaps professional advisors will succeed in turning her around so that she starts making appeals to the mainstream, but it's not clear to me that she is, by character, capable of doing this in an effective way. To do so, she would really need to change her personality, cease to play the victim, move away from the divisiveness of her public statements and persona, and develop some substance. I don't think it will happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)