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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)