Sunday, February 21, 2010
Tom Friedman on "Global Weirding"
I think that Tom Friedman has been naive about politics (he thought that Bush's war in Iraq was a good thing since it was intended to produce an exemplar of democracy in that part of the world). However, he has a good column today about global warming and the morons who think -- or at least say -- that an Atlantic seabord snowstorm shows it ain't happening. Here's a link.
Public option and/or Medicare expansion
Medicare expansion may not be so much an alternative to the "public option" as a stalking horse for it. It seemed that this idea might actually have been part of the Senate plan were it not for Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson, while the public option never seemed to have much of a chance in the Senate in spite of its popular appeal. I personally think that the precedent of being able to "buy in" to Medicare before retirement may actually be a more promising step toward a strong public option than the ponderous and highly restrictive Democratic plan that has been going by that name. In spite of dis-information to the contrary, Medicare is a highly popular plan and is quite efficient in delivering healthcare while controlling costs -- certainly much better than for-profit health insurers. Unfortunately, these are issues where the facts seem to fall before the falsehoods of the PTR and its masters in the insurance industry.
It is important to remember that, underneath the obstructionism of the Chamber of Commerce and other pro-business groups, most businesses -- especially manufacturing businesses such as the automakers -- favor strong healthcare reform because it will help make them more competitive if it can remove healthcare premiums from their expenses. All of their foreign competitors, in fact, have strong single-payer or other highly regulated, efficient and successful plans. As we should all know, workers in the other highly-industrialized countries with which we compete are happier, healthier and enjoy longer life-spans and higher standards of living than our own workers. For all the defects of the Democrats, they do want our workers to enjoy these benefits, while the PTR would favor the status quo. That's one of the major reasons the PTR constantly bashes the Canadians and the Europeans (especially the French).
It is important to remember that, underneath the obstructionism of the Chamber of Commerce and other pro-business groups, most businesses -- especially manufacturing businesses such as the automakers -- favor strong healthcare reform because it will help make them more competitive if it can remove healthcare premiums from their expenses. All of their foreign competitors, in fact, have strong single-payer or other highly regulated, efficient and successful plans. As we should all know, workers in the other highly-industrialized countries with which we compete are happier, healthier and enjoy longer life-spans and higher standards of living than our own workers. For all the defects of the Democrats, they do want our workers to enjoy these benefits, while the PTR would favor the status quo. That's one of the major reasons the PTR constantly bashes the Canadians and the Europeans (especially the French).
Saturday, February 20, 2010
There they go again
This from the AP (my italics):
"Yet passing anything but a very modest bill would likely mean using special budget rules that let Democrats override Republicans in the Senate with a simple majority. Using the budget route — called reconciliation — to resolve differences between the House and Senate bills probably would enrage Republicans. "
How will we notice any difference if the PTR is enraged? How can that possibly be an argument for or against any policy, strategy or tactic? If the PTR will give V votes for the Dems healthcare reform, and we multiply by the enragement factor E, then we get the equation (0)(V) = 0. Why does the AP write such claptrap?
Also, what the AP write calls a "simple majority" is what is known in most democracies as, simply, a majority. The filibuster is not a law of nature; it isn't a law of anything -- not even a Senate law. It simply means that someone says that they'll continue talking until shut up by a cloture vote. Why doesn't the AP point out that allowing this to go unchallenged is undemocratic, especially in an intrinsically undemocratic chamber of government (viz.: the Senate).
As more and more newspapers eliminate their own reporting and depend on the AP we will get more and more issues framed by this kind of superficial pop-phraseology. But even staff writers for well-respected newspapers are sometimes guilty: see my related blog on one writer's use of the term "moderates."
"Yet passing anything but a very modest bill would likely mean using special budget rules that let Democrats override Republicans in the Senate with a simple majority. Using the budget route — called reconciliation — to resolve differences between the House and Senate bills probably would enrage Republicans. "
How will we notice any difference if the PTR is enraged? How can that possibly be an argument for or against any policy, strategy or tactic? If the PTR will give V votes for the Dems healthcare reform, and we multiply by the enragement factor E, then we get the equation (0)(V) = 0. Why does the AP write such claptrap?
Also, what the AP write calls a "simple majority" is what is known in most democracies as, simply, a majority. The filibuster is not a law of nature; it isn't a law of anything -- not even a Senate law. It simply means that someone says that they'll continue talking until shut up by a cloture vote. Why doesn't the AP point out that allowing this to go unchallenged is undemocratic, especially in an intrinsically undemocratic chamber of government (viz.: the Senate).
As more and more newspapers eliminate their own reporting and depend on the AP we will get more and more issues framed by this kind of superficial pop-phraseology. But even staff writers for well-respected newspapers are sometimes guilty: see my related blog on one writer's use of the term "moderates."
Friday, February 19, 2010
Krugman on health insurance "Death Spiral"
Today's column by Paul Krugman in the NY Times has a very concise summary of the major issues pointing to the need for national health insurance reform; read it here. This is nothing new for readers of Krugman or this blog, it's just said very well and is a good source for arguing the issue.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Unnecessary do-goodism
The Governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick has proposed that soda and candy be subject to the state sales tax law. Today's Boston Globe has chosen to defend that proposal on the grounds that taxing these products would "promote healthier diets for children." This is a really bad way to support a good proposal. Here's why.
The Massachusetts sales tax law is a very reasonable one. Everything is taxed except for "necessities" such as food, clothing, shelter and medicine. This does a pretty good job of cutting down the regressive nature of a sales tax. However, the law as currently applied seems to classify as food, by default, anything that is edible -- except alcohol, which used to be exempt but is now taxed.
The tax on alcohol is an interesting example. Booze is certainly edible, but hardly could be counted as either nourishing or necessary. Many liberal do-gooders jumped up to support taxing it on the grounds that a tax would discourage consumption of a product they consider unhealthy. This is the unpleasant activist version of the Golden Rule which says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (Instead of the less meddlesome one "Do not do unto others as you would hate them to do to you" -- sometimes attributed to Rabbi Hillel.) The Globe position on candy and soda is based on a similar philosophy: Tax these because we think they are bad for you and we don't mind the tax.
It is interesting to note that since the sales tax on alcohol went into effect on August 1, alcohol sales have increased. No one can say for sure why, but they haven't decreased.
The point is that one can make a good case for taxing both alcohol and candy/soda, without becoming an advocate of using tax policy to enforce a paternalistic "doing what's good for you" attitude. The idea is to use that fact that exemptions to the sales tax are for items that are considered necessities or sustenance. Clearly nourishing food, reasonable clothing, shelter and medicine fall into these categories. Neither alcohol nor candy and soda are nourishing or life-supporting. On the other hand, fatty meat and cheese (a source of worry for the Globe), and prepared or highly processed foods are. With moderation you can live -- even prosper -- on these. Try living on whiskey and candy though.
Thus, the basic principles underlying the sales tax law are sound and reasonable. You don't need a do-gooder mentality -- resented by most people -- to remove the exemptions for alcohol and candy. Just observe that they aren't nourishing so don't rate special treatment any more than car wax, sphagnum moss, or chewing tobacco.
The Massachusetts sales tax law is a very reasonable one. Everything is taxed except for "necessities" such as food, clothing, shelter and medicine. This does a pretty good job of cutting down the regressive nature of a sales tax. However, the law as currently applied seems to classify as food, by default, anything that is edible -- except alcohol, which used to be exempt but is now taxed.
The tax on alcohol is an interesting example. Booze is certainly edible, but hardly could be counted as either nourishing or necessary. Many liberal do-gooders jumped up to support taxing it on the grounds that a tax would discourage consumption of a product they consider unhealthy. This is the unpleasant activist version of the Golden Rule which says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (Instead of the less meddlesome one "Do not do unto others as you would hate them to do to you" -- sometimes attributed to Rabbi Hillel.) The Globe position on candy and soda is based on a similar philosophy: Tax these because we think they are bad for you and we don't mind the tax.
It is interesting to note that since the sales tax on alcohol went into effect on August 1, alcohol sales have increased. No one can say for sure why, but they haven't decreased.
The point is that one can make a good case for taxing both alcohol and candy/soda, without becoming an advocate of using tax policy to enforce a paternalistic "doing what's good for you" attitude. The idea is to use that fact that exemptions to the sales tax are for items that are considered necessities or sustenance. Clearly nourishing food, reasonable clothing, shelter and medicine fall into these categories. Neither alcohol nor candy and soda are nourishing or life-supporting. On the other hand, fatty meat and cheese (a source of worry for the Globe), and prepared or highly processed foods are. With moderation you can live -- even prosper -- on these. Try living on whiskey and candy though.
Thus, the basic principles underlying the sales tax law are sound and reasonable. You don't need a do-gooder mentality -- resented by most people -- to remove the exemptions for alcohol and candy. Just observe that they aren't nourishing so don't rate special treatment any more than car wax, sphagnum moss, or chewing tobacco.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
4 + 47 = 51
So progressive senators Mike Bennet (D-CO), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) have written a letter to maj. leader Reid suggesting that a public option be introduced and passed in the Senate by reconciliation. Certainly it would be nice if such a motion could pass, but we still need 47 more votes. This is the kind of thing that a forceful president and majority leader might be able to pull off using behind-the-scenes arm-twisting. But I emphasize might. No source I have seen suggests that the votes are there. That's why we need arm-twisting. In any case, it still looks like we need some Democratic hardball. Why aren't the Dems reminding people that reconciliation is a time-honored technique to make the Senate more responsive and democratic (small "d").
Of course, this is mainly a Senate problem. The House, being more representative of the people and not having a filibuster rule, is actually quite progressive. But nothing, just nothing, is coming out of the Senate's event horizon.
Meanwhile Obama is off in cloud cuckoo land, trying to woo the PTR with promises of new nuclear power plants. Note that no one has yet solved the problem of what to do with spent nuclear fuel and other highly dangerous and long-lived radioactive waste. Nobody wants it, Republican, Democrat or Independent. If this problem could be solved, I'd be all for nukes; maybe if we build 'em, the problem will simply go away.
Of course, this is mainly a Senate problem. The House, being more representative of the people and not having a filibuster rule, is actually quite progressive. But nothing, just nothing, is coming out of the Senate's event horizon.
Meanwhile Obama is off in cloud cuckoo land, trying to woo the PTR with promises of new nuclear power plants. Note that no one has yet solved the problem of what to do with spent nuclear fuel and other highly dangerous and long-lived radioactive waste. Nobody wants it, Republican, Democrat or Independent. If this problem could be solved, I'd be all for nukes; maybe if we build 'em, the problem will simply go away.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
On assignment in the Big Apple
Well, just kidding. But I will be in NYC through Tuesday, so no blogs till later.
(As if to challenge my assertion that we New Englanders are -- or should be -- used to snow, it's predicted on Tuesday for our route back home. If only the political gods were as tough on claims as the weather ones.)
(As if to challenge my assertion that we New Englanders are -- or should be -- used to snow, it's predicted on Tuesday for our route back home. If only the political gods were as tough on claims as the weather ones.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
