Progressives hate income inequality. It eats at their souls. It obsesses them. The progressive Obama administration has shown that it would rather wreck the world economy than pass up a chance to raise taxes on the rich.
Despite this, the gap between the rich and the poor is growing? Blame the Progressives in general and the Obama administration in particular.
Little attention has been paid to the Obama administration's actual efforts to stimulate the economy. These are separate from the stimulus. They consist mainly of pouring money into Wall Street in the hopes that it will trickle down to the rest of the economy.
The Obama Administration has been keeping interest rates near zero for years. This allows banks and other financial institutions to borrow money at almost no cost then invest it in high-return investments, many in the so-called shadow economy. Worse, these institutions have been deemed too big to fail so the government will bail them out of bad investments. Worse yet, the Obama administration has admitted that it will not prosecute illegal investments because that could cause a "loss of confidence".
The amounts involved are huge and the profits are too good to pass up, especially since the government has eliminated the risk. So everyone involved is getting richer and richer. This has nothing to do with Bush tax cuts or Republican policies. The Republicans have been pushing to remove the safety nets and let the banks rise or fall on their own.
Friday, March 29, 2013
Monday, March 25, 2013
The False Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage
I keep seeing a number of arguments against same sex marriage. While often given as killer arguments, they are not actually very strong. Here are the main ones:
Before you say that you believe this, answer a few questions:
Unless you agree with these, you don't really believe that marriage is only for raising children.
"What about adoption?" you may ask. What about it? Gays can and do adopt and studies show that it is better to have two gay parents than none.
Marriage is a religious institution and the Bible forbids it.
Marriage straddles the line between being a civil and religious institution. Historically, Catholics saw it as religious and puritans saw it as civil. That is why both a clergy and a judge can perform a marriage. In this case we are talking about the civil portion of it.
There is also the First Amendment which forbids passing laws based on religion.
Same sex marriage is an attack on the institution of marriage.
Marriage is in a lot of trouble but not because of a tiny minority. An increasing number of hetro couples skip getting married and an increasing number of women have children by multiple fathers before marrying (and seldom to the father of her children). A distressing number of presidential candidates (and one ex-president) have been caught in affairs. Having a new group that wants to be married can only strengthen it.
Same sex marriage will lead to polygamy.
Maybe it will, maybe it won't. That's a different fight for a different day. There are a lot more people in same-sex relationships than multiple-partner ones. But those relationships do exist and they are pushing for recognition regardless of same sex marriage. The two are not directly linked.
Marriage is an institution for raising children.
Before you say that you believe this, answer a few questions:
- Should childless post-menopausal women be bared form getting married?
- Should a childless woman be given an automatic divorce if she has a hysterectomy?
- Should couples who have not had children be given an automatic divorce after a reasonable period?
Unless you agree with these, you don't really believe that marriage is only for raising children.
"What about adoption?" you may ask. What about it? Gays can and do adopt and studies show that it is better to have two gay parents than none.
Marriage is a religious institution and the Bible forbids it.
Marriage straddles the line between being a civil and religious institution. Historically, Catholics saw it as religious and puritans saw it as civil. That is why both a clergy and a judge can perform a marriage. In this case we are talking about the civil portion of it.
There is also the First Amendment which forbids passing laws based on religion.
Same sex marriage is an attack on the institution of marriage.
Marriage is in a lot of trouble but not because of a tiny minority. An increasing number of hetro couples skip getting married and an increasing number of women have children by multiple fathers before marrying (and seldom to the father of her children). A distressing number of presidential candidates (and one ex-president) have been caught in affairs. Having a new group that wants to be married can only strengthen it.
Same sex marriage will lead to polygamy.
Maybe it will, maybe it won't. That's a different fight for a different day. There are a lot more people in same-sex relationships than multiple-partner ones. But those relationships do exist and they are pushing for recognition regardless of same sex marriage. The two are not directly linked.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
No Way to Run a Bank
The idea of taxing Cypress bank accounts seems reasonable if you look at it from the viewpoint of the Euro Zone administrators in Brussels. The banks attracted a lot of foreign business, mainly Russian. They lost a lot of money in bad investments including in Greece and the amount of money needed to bail them out will push the Cypress national debt into the danger zone. Investors in stocks and bonds have had to stomach a haircut (sharing the cost of the bailout) so why shouldn't these customers?
There is also an echo of the Occupy movement and progressivism in general. A lot of money from the bailout will go to rich Russians. The tax is an attempt at getting someone else to cover the costs.
None of these arguments are good enough because of the special nature of banks. When we invest our money we know that there is a chance that we will lose it instead. Banks are supposed to be the alternative - someplace where we can put out money to keep it safe. Banks work because people trust them. If you take away 10% of their money because it is in a bank then you destroy that trust. If I stuff my money into an old mattress it may not be making any interest but at least no one is confiscating part of it.
Cypress is a small country but the idea for this came from Brussels, the heart of the Euro Zone. The worry is that this will set an international precedent. This could cause an international run on banks and destroy the world's financial system. Against that, the arguments in favor of the tax are insignificant.
Fortunately, the tax was so unpopular that Cypress is having to resort to an unnamed Plan B. Even so, the banks are likely to stay closed for the rest of the week to prevent a run that would cripple them.
It would be a good idea for US leaders to promise to never consider taxing savings. It would strengthen the US banking system.
There is also an echo of the Occupy movement and progressivism in general. A lot of money from the bailout will go to rich Russians. The tax is an attempt at getting someone else to cover the costs.
None of these arguments are good enough because of the special nature of banks. When we invest our money we know that there is a chance that we will lose it instead. Banks are supposed to be the alternative - someplace where we can put out money to keep it safe. Banks work because people trust them. If you take away 10% of their money because it is in a bank then you destroy that trust. If I stuff my money into an old mattress it may not be making any interest but at least no one is confiscating part of it.
Cypress is a small country but the idea for this came from Brussels, the heart of the Euro Zone. The worry is that this will set an international precedent. This could cause an international run on banks and destroy the world's financial system. Against that, the arguments in favor of the tax are insignificant.
Fortunately, the tax was so unpopular that Cypress is having to resort to an unnamed Plan B. Even so, the banks are likely to stay closed for the rest of the week to prevent a run that would cripple them.
It would be a good idea for US leaders to promise to never consider taxing savings. It would strengthen the US banking system.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Nanny State Run Amok
The Progressive vision of the government is a powerful but benevolent entity that mediates nearly every aspect of life in order to assure optimum outcomes. The desire on the left to "do something" often results in legislation or regulations that are meant to address a problem. Often the more pressing the problem appears the less likely the response will be meaningful. The news is full of examples of this on all levels. The result of this is a nanny state that treats its citizens as if they were small children.
The current proposals for gun legislation top the list. None of the most common proposals would have stopped any of the recent mass-shootings. All of the shooters would have passed a background check so expanding the checks to include private sales simply penalizes law-abiding citizens for no good reason.
The efforts to outlaw "assault weapons" goes beyond silly. The AR-15 is the country's most popular gun but it is seldom used for murders. Lawmakers might as well propose a ban on "assault clubs" (baseball bats) since they are used in more murders. This is the nanny state at its "best". A group arbitrarily decided that something might be misused therefore it must be banned. The fact that millions of these guns are used peacefully and regularly for target shooting is irrelevant. The argument that "no one needs one of these assault weapons" trumps everything. Similar logic is advanced to outlaw the most common style pistol.
The extreme version of this logic has been showing up nationwide in a series of incidents where small children are punished for even thinking about guns. Students of one class were offered counseling after a child brandished a gun-shaped breakfast pastry.
The nanny state swings into high gear on obesity. Everyone is now treated as a potential fatty who has to be protected from bad food choices. For decades, school lunches were prepared with the idea of making sure that all children got at least one good meal per day. Now, as a result of the First Lady's fitness initiative, the top goal is preventing obesity. The new meals go a long way in this direction since most students find them inedible.
Ironically, last week the First Lady announces that she does not weigh her children or talk about weight with them. She wants them to be comfortable in whatever bodies they inhabit. The rest of the country's children will continue to be judged against an arbitrary standard.
Then there is New York City where the citizens have to be protected from the dangers of soft drinks. When he struck down this regulation the Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court noted that it was unevenly applied. Many high-calorie drinks were allowed including alcoholic ones. Many studies indicate that artificial sweetener is more to blame than sugar but that was also given a pass.
Another example of the nanny state in action is the decree that everyone must be insured. The real problem facing the country is the rising cost of health care. Obamacare will make that worse by increasing demand and by taxing medical equipment.
Obamacare came about originally because the President wanted something important for his legacy. It was quickly decided that real health care reform would be too difficult but that a law that forced 20-30 million of uninsured to purchase insurance would be significant.
Since this is the government, satisfying the insurance requirement will not be easy. The application form was just released. It is 15 pages with 21 pages of instructions.
Given a chance, the Progressives want to control how much money you make and how you move around. They strongly prefer limited range electric cars and high-speed trains to regular cars and airplanes.
Because they are doing things for our own good, the Progressives see themselves as having the moral high ground. If results don't meet expectations then it means that a new round of regulations is in order. And it is always better to try to solve problems by expanding government.
The current proposals for gun legislation top the list. None of the most common proposals would have stopped any of the recent mass-shootings. All of the shooters would have passed a background check so expanding the checks to include private sales simply penalizes law-abiding citizens for no good reason.
The efforts to outlaw "assault weapons" goes beyond silly. The AR-15 is the country's most popular gun but it is seldom used for murders. Lawmakers might as well propose a ban on "assault clubs" (baseball bats) since they are used in more murders. This is the nanny state at its "best". A group arbitrarily decided that something might be misused therefore it must be banned. The fact that millions of these guns are used peacefully and regularly for target shooting is irrelevant. The argument that "no one needs one of these assault weapons" trumps everything. Similar logic is advanced to outlaw the most common style pistol.
The extreme version of this logic has been showing up nationwide in a series of incidents where small children are punished for even thinking about guns. Students of one class were offered counseling after a child brandished a gun-shaped breakfast pastry.
The nanny state swings into high gear on obesity. Everyone is now treated as a potential fatty who has to be protected from bad food choices. For decades, school lunches were prepared with the idea of making sure that all children got at least one good meal per day. Now, as a result of the First Lady's fitness initiative, the top goal is preventing obesity. The new meals go a long way in this direction since most students find them inedible.
Ironically, last week the First Lady announces that she does not weigh her children or talk about weight with them. She wants them to be comfortable in whatever bodies they inhabit. The rest of the country's children will continue to be judged against an arbitrary standard.
Then there is New York City where the citizens have to be protected from the dangers of soft drinks. When he struck down this regulation the Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court noted that it was unevenly applied. Many high-calorie drinks were allowed including alcoholic ones. Many studies indicate that artificial sweetener is more to blame than sugar but that was also given a pass.
Another example of the nanny state in action is the decree that everyone must be insured. The real problem facing the country is the rising cost of health care. Obamacare will make that worse by increasing demand and by taxing medical equipment.
Obamacare came about originally because the President wanted something important for his legacy. It was quickly decided that real health care reform would be too difficult but that a law that forced 20-30 million of uninsured to purchase insurance would be significant.
Since this is the government, satisfying the insurance requirement will not be easy. The application form was just released. It is 15 pages with 21 pages of instructions.
Given a chance, the Progressives want to control how much money you make and how you move around. They strongly prefer limited range electric cars and high-speed trains to regular cars and airplanes.
Because they are doing things for our own good, the Progressives see themselves as having the moral high ground. If results don't meet expectations then it means that a new round of regulations is in order. And it is always better to try to solve problems by expanding government.
Thursday, March 07, 2013
Everyone Loves a Dictator
The press coverage of the death of Hugo Chavez is interesting. I've seen stories about grieving thousands and his outrageous statements. Some coverage has mentioned that he created a fund for helping low-income families in the US pay for heating oil (without mentioning how insignificant this fund is). Many stories mention his work for the poor.
Several celebrities mourned him. These include Oliver Stone, Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Roseanne Barr, and Michael Moore.
Several things have not been mentioned. Chavez tried to overthrow the elected government in 1992 and was arrested. He was later pardoned and was elected president in 1998. He also formed an alliance with Fidel Castro. Once in power, he rewrote the constitution and nationalized oil production. He attempted to pass a law that would have required schools to teach pro-Bolivian propaganda (his party was the Bolivian party).
Over time, Chavez moved further to the left. He financed the Columbian guerrilla movement FARC which was known for violence and kidnapping. He had close ties with Iran and other anti-US governments. He insisted that al Qaeda was a fictional creation of the US. His government also engaged in antisemitism.
Under his rule, Venezuela has suffered from high inflation and crime. The murder rate increased by 300%-400% during his administration. There were food shortages. Chavez responded by nationalizing food production and farm land and by putting ceilings on food prices. Predictably, this compounded the shortages.
Human rights under Chavez were criticized by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the Organization of American States. Reporters Without Borders accused Chavez of silencing critics. The country's largest cable TV company was taken off the air for having supported the opposition.
When Chavaz was diagnosed with cancer he insisted that the US caused it. This charge was repeated by his successor who expelled two American diplomats after Chavez's death.
Chavez's hand-picked successor took charge instead of the official named by their constitution. This has led to charges that the Cubans are now in control of Venezuela.
So, why has so little of this been mentioned? Because many people, especially on the left, admire Chavez's policies and wish that President Obama had used Chavez as a model for reforming the US.
Several celebrities mourned him. These include Oliver Stone, Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Roseanne Barr, and Michael Moore.
Several things have not been mentioned. Chavez tried to overthrow the elected government in 1992 and was arrested. He was later pardoned and was elected president in 1998. He also formed an alliance with Fidel Castro. Once in power, he rewrote the constitution and nationalized oil production. He attempted to pass a law that would have required schools to teach pro-Bolivian propaganda (his party was the Bolivian party).
Over time, Chavez moved further to the left. He financed the Columbian guerrilla movement FARC which was known for violence and kidnapping. He had close ties with Iran and other anti-US governments. He insisted that al Qaeda was a fictional creation of the US. His government also engaged in antisemitism.
Under his rule, Venezuela has suffered from high inflation and crime. The murder rate increased by 300%-400% during his administration. There were food shortages. Chavez responded by nationalizing food production and farm land and by putting ceilings on food prices. Predictably, this compounded the shortages.
Human rights under Chavez were criticized by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the Organization of American States. Reporters Without Borders accused Chavez of silencing critics. The country's largest cable TV company was taken off the air for having supported the opposition.
When Chavaz was diagnosed with cancer he insisted that the US caused it. This charge was repeated by his successor who expelled two American diplomats after Chavez's death.
Chavez's hand-picked successor took charge instead of the official named by their constitution. This has led to charges that the Cubans are now in control of Venezuela.
So, why has so little of this been mentioned? Because many people, especially on the left, admire Chavez's policies and wish that President Obama had used Chavez as a model for reforming the US.
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
Obama and the Republicans
In his first national speech, Barack Obama condemned the bitter partisanship of Washington. While running for president he promised to change the culture of Washington.
He made good on that promise. He made the partisanship much worse. A case can be made that winning political points over the Republicans has become Obama's top priority and actually running the country is a distant second (if that).
Relations went downhill fast after Obama's first inauguration. He did make the gesture of inviting members of both parties to the White House to watch the Super Bowl but this did not go well. A better politician would have used the time to work the room. Football was more important to Obama than politics so he sat in the front seat and watched the game.
One of the first pieces of legislation was the stimulus bill. Republicans were completely shut out of writing it. They were not able to add a single amendment. As a result, they opposed it unanimously. While trying to lobby the Republicans, Obama seemed confused at their reaction. He is reported to have said something to the effect of, "We put in things that you are supposed to like."
With solid majorities in both houses, the mood in the White House was "We have the votes. F---- them!"
That changed in the mid-term elections when the Republicans took over the House and made gains in the Senate. Obama did not react well to the change. When negotiating for a debt ceiling increase, the Republicans demanded cuts in future spending. One of their proposals would have flattened the tax rates while removing deductions which would have resulted in higher revenue. The White House responded with a proposal for the most progressive tax rates in history - something the Republicans would never consider.
This led the White House to propose the Sequester. The idea was that all discretionary spending would be cut but defense would have disproportionate cuts. The White House hoped that pro-defense Republicans would eventually agree to almost anything rather than see defense cuts. The Sequester was supposed to be avoided by an agreement to be reached by a super-committee. This failed, setting the stage for the Sequester.
Obama effectively stopped governing in July, 2011. He spent that August on vacation and writing a new stimulus bill. This turned out to be nothing but a political stunt. He was leading crowds in chants of "Pass the bill" before it had even gone to Congress. Predictably, it was unacceptable to the Republicans and went no where.
During his campaign, he told supporters that Congress had a Republican Fever and that his reelection would cure it. He seemed to think that Republicans would see his reelection as a mandate for his (largely unstated) platform.
The President did have the upper hand in negotiations for the Fiscal Cliff. He proved that he was perfectly willing to let the economy fail as long as he won political points in the process. What is more, he had the upper hand. If he did nothing then the Bush tax cuts expired on everyone. He would only allow cuts for lower-wage earners to be extended. With little choice, the Republicans surrendered.
This brings us to the Sequester. Obama refused to agree to anything that did not include new taxes. The Republicans could not agree to this so the Sequester took place. rather than trying to work with the Republicans, Obama spent his time campaigning on how disruptive the cuts will be.
Reportedly, Obama's plan is to put governing on hold and spend the next year and a half running against the Republicans. His hope is to retake the House and get back to the days of, "We've got the votes! F---- the Republicans!" At this point he will rush the rest of his progressive platform through Congress.
That means that we will have three and a half years in which the President is more concerned with scoring political points than doing what is best for the country.
He made good on that promise. He made the partisanship much worse. A case can be made that winning political points over the Republicans has become Obama's top priority and actually running the country is a distant second (if that).
Relations went downhill fast after Obama's first inauguration. He did make the gesture of inviting members of both parties to the White House to watch the Super Bowl but this did not go well. A better politician would have used the time to work the room. Football was more important to Obama than politics so he sat in the front seat and watched the game.
One of the first pieces of legislation was the stimulus bill. Republicans were completely shut out of writing it. They were not able to add a single amendment. As a result, they opposed it unanimously. While trying to lobby the Republicans, Obama seemed confused at their reaction. He is reported to have said something to the effect of, "We put in things that you are supposed to like."
With solid majorities in both houses, the mood in the White House was "We have the votes. F---- them!"
That changed in the mid-term elections when the Republicans took over the House and made gains in the Senate. Obama did not react well to the change. When negotiating for a debt ceiling increase, the Republicans demanded cuts in future spending. One of their proposals would have flattened the tax rates while removing deductions which would have resulted in higher revenue. The White House responded with a proposal for the most progressive tax rates in history - something the Republicans would never consider.
This led the White House to propose the Sequester. The idea was that all discretionary spending would be cut but defense would have disproportionate cuts. The White House hoped that pro-defense Republicans would eventually agree to almost anything rather than see defense cuts. The Sequester was supposed to be avoided by an agreement to be reached by a super-committee. This failed, setting the stage for the Sequester.
Obama effectively stopped governing in July, 2011. He spent that August on vacation and writing a new stimulus bill. This turned out to be nothing but a political stunt. He was leading crowds in chants of "Pass the bill" before it had even gone to Congress. Predictably, it was unacceptable to the Republicans and went no where.
During his campaign, he told supporters that Congress had a Republican Fever and that his reelection would cure it. He seemed to think that Republicans would see his reelection as a mandate for his (largely unstated) platform.
The President did have the upper hand in negotiations for the Fiscal Cliff. He proved that he was perfectly willing to let the economy fail as long as he won political points in the process. What is more, he had the upper hand. If he did nothing then the Bush tax cuts expired on everyone. He would only allow cuts for lower-wage earners to be extended. With little choice, the Republicans surrendered.
This brings us to the Sequester. Obama refused to agree to anything that did not include new taxes. The Republicans could not agree to this so the Sequester took place. rather than trying to work with the Republicans, Obama spent his time campaigning on how disruptive the cuts will be.
Reportedly, Obama's plan is to put governing on hold and spend the next year and a half running against the Republicans. His hope is to retake the House and get back to the days of, "We've got the votes! F---- the Republicans!" At this point he will rush the rest of his progressive platform through Congress.
That means that we will have three and a half years in which the President is more concerned with scoring political points than doing what is best for the country.
Monday, February 25, 2013
The Sequester
Let's start with a little background. After winning the Presidency and both houses of Congress, the Democrats went on a major spending spree. After years of complaining about the Bush deficits, they tripled it. The Tea Party formed largely as a response to this unprecedented spending and took back the House of Representatives.
In 2011, the government was about to hit the debt ceiling - the amount that it can borrow to cover its expenditures. While increases int he debt ceiling are usually non-controversial, this time the Republicans refused to raise it without cuts in spending. With a deadline coming quickly, the White House came up with a deal - in exchange for raising the debt ceiling high enough to get Obama past the election, he would support future cuts to be decided by a congressional super-committee. To be sure that the super committee did it's job, the deal also included the sequester. This is an across-the-board cut of with the deepest cuts being in the military. The idea was that Democrats would not want to see their favorite programs cut and Republicans would not want to see the military cut.
The super-committee failed. A December 31st deal on the Fiscal Cliff raised taxes on the wealthy and postponed the sequester for two months.
So where are we now?
The Republicans' position is simple - taxes have already been raised without any cuts. Now it is time for cuts. They are willing to discuss reapportioning the cuts but their constituencies will not support any new taxes.
The Democrats have their own position. Since Obama won the election, the Republicans should agree to anything the Democrats want. They will not approve any bill that does not include significant new revenue.
A lot of political calculation went into the Democrats' position. First, they really do believe that the election means that the Republicans should defer to them on all things, especially tax increases. They have been accused of moving the goalposts on this since the original deal was for cuts only and since taxes have already been raised without any spending cuts.
The Democrats have an eye on the next election and much of their strategy is the opening gambit for that. They hope that if they can force a tax increase then it will split the Republicans' coalition and allow the Democrats to retake the House. If that fails then they hope that they can blame the sequester on the Republicans. Obama began rewriting history during the third debate and have continued to insist that the sequester was the brainchild of the nasty Republicans. No less authority than Bob Woodward has taken issue with this account.
The Republicans have passed two proposals for replacing the cuts. The Democrats have rejected these but refused to make their own suggestions that don't include tax increases. Chance are they are reluctant to advance a cuts-only proposal because they know the Republicans would accept any reasonable offer.
Many Republicans have concluded that, as bad as the sequester is, it is the only deal that they will get that does not involve raising taxes.
The big danger for the Democrats would be for the sequester to take place and for the consequences to be less than predicted. Given the magnitude of the the disaster the President has described, the actuality is likely to be a dud.
That is the risk the Republicans are taking.
In 2011, the government was about to hit the debt ceiling - the amount that it can borrow to cover its expenditures. While increases int he debt ceiling are usually non-controversial, this time the Republicans refused to raise it without cuts in spending. With a deadline coming quickly, the White House came up with a deal - in exchange for raising the debt ceiling high enough to get Obama past the election, he would support future cuts to be decided by a congressional super-committee. To be sure that the super committee did it's job, the deal also included the sequester. This is an across-the-board cut of with the deepest cuts being in the military. The idea was that Democrats would not want to see their favorite programs cut and Republicans would not want to see the military cut.
The super-committee failed. A December 31st deal on the Fiscal Cliff raised taxes on the wealthy and postponed the sequester for two months.
So where are we now?
The Republicans' position is simple - taxes have already been raised without any cuts. Now it is time for cuts. They are willing to discuss reapportioning the cuts but their constituencies will not support any new taxes.
The Democrats have their own position. Since Obama won the election, the Republicans should agree to anything the Democrats want. They will not approve any bill that does not include significant new revenue.
A lot of political calculation went into the Democrats' position. First, they really do believe that the election means that the Republicans should defer to them on all things, especially tax increases. They have been accused of moving the goalposts on this since the original deal was for cuts only and since taxes have already been raised without any spending cuts.
The Democrats have an eye on the next election and much of their strategy is the opening gambit for that. They hope that if they can force a tax increase then it will split the Republicans' coalition and allow the Democrats to retake the House. If that fails then they hope that they can blame the sequester on the Republicans. Obama began rewriting history during the third debate and have continued to insist that the sequester was the brainchild of the nasty Republicans. No less authority than Bob Woodward has taken issue with this account.
The Republicans have passed two proposals for replacing the cuts. The Democrats have rejected these but refused to make their own suggestions that don't include tax increases. Chance are they are reluctant to advance a cuts-only proposal because they know the Republicans would accept any reasonable offer.
Many Republicans have concluded that, as bad as the sequester is, it is the only deal that they will get that does not involve raising taxes.
The big danger for the Democrats would be for the sequester to take place and for the consequences to be less than predicted. Given the magnitude of the the disaster the President has described, the actuality is likely to be a dud.
That is the risk the Republicans are taking.
Friday, February 22, 2013
False Choices
In a column in the Huffington Post, Evangeline Lilly muses about CO2 emissions. She gets off to a bad start by admitting that she flew 16 hours each way to attend a climate rally in Washington DC. From there she starts fretting over why her jet wasn't powered by bio-fuels and why oil workers have to have dirty jobs.
Lilly is apparently unaware of the toxic environment involved in making solar cells and batteries. She also seems to think that the raw materials for these materialize out of thin air, possible created by combining wind and sun beams, instead of being mined in some of the world's dirtiest mines. Most of our raw materials come from third world countries because activists like her do not want them in her country.
I'm sure that most people would prefer feeding unicorns to drilling oil wells but that isn't a real choice and nether are the alternatives she presents.
If oil workers could choose, would they choose to work in toxic environments with damaging chemicals, or would they choose to work surrounded by clean air?
If Americans could choose, would they choose to work on the infrastructure for cancer-causing oil power or would they choose to work on the infrastructure for health reviving wind power?
If people had a choice, what would that choice be?
If Canadians could choose, would they choose to dig up their forests, leaving behind barren and filthy wastelands, or would they choose to harvest the sun's rays and leave behind a legacy for their children?
My reflections on climate choice were abruptly interrupted by the ever more sobering understanding that, right now, so many citizens of our free, democratic nations have no choice. They go to work in the dirty energy sector for lack of a better alternative.
Lilly is apparently unaware of the toxic environment involved in making solar cells and batteries. She also seems to think that the raw materials for these materialize out of thin air, possible created by combining wind and sun beams, instead of being mined in some of the world's dirtiest mines. Most of our raw materials come from third world countries because activists like her do not want them in her country.
I'm sure that most people would prefer feeding unicorns to drilling oil wells but that isn't a real choice and nether are the alternatives she presents.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
The Gun Control Debate
I am struck by the similarities between the current gun control debate and the debate over abortions. Consider:
Both issues have highly polarized extremes who are framing the debate. The anti-abortion people believe that abortion is murder. The anti-gun people believe that guns lead to murder. The pro-abortion and pro-gun people defend their position in terms of fundamental rights.
The anti-abortion and anti-gun people would like nothing less than a total ban. The pro-abortion and pro-gun people see any restrictions as the thin edge of a wedge that will eventually lead to a complete ban.
Of course, there are significant differences. No one is rushing out to have an abortion because it might be outlawed and there are tens of millions of gun owners who will never hurt a soul with their guns. Still, the intensity and polarization of the issues is similar.
The biggest difference is that the positions are reversed between the two. Liberals are pro-abortion and anti-gun while conservatives tend to be pro-gun and anti-abortion.
Let's look at the current set of proposals. I've done this before but now some concrete legislation has been introduced.
Most proposals that have been introduced concentrate on either assault weapons or high-capacity magazines. The assault weapon ban makes the least sense. These weapons are very common but are seldom used in crimes. A complete ban would be statistically insignificant (so small you couldn't see it on a chart showing gun violence). The main reason for going after these weapons is simply that they look scary. There is nothing about a pistol grip of folding stock that makes a gun more lethal.
The attack on high-capacity magazines makes a tiny bit of sense. The reasoning is that the few seconds it takes a shooter to change magazines might give his victims time to fight back or run. There is no actual evidence to support this, just a general feeling.
It should be pointed out that these proposals would outlaw the most popular rifle and pistol. Chances are very good that the laws will simply be ignored. In fact, in New York where such a ban already passed, thousands are vowing acts of civil disobedience by keeping their magazines. Any law that will be widely ignored is a bad law and should not be passed.
One proposal that is being pushed without any legislation yet being proposed is universal background checks. This is also known as "closing the gun show loophole". What it really means is regulating all private gun transactions. Because nothing has been proposed but the idea keeps being floated as "reasonable", talk of universal background checks in worrisome.
There are many open questions about how this would be handled. Presumably, if I wanted to sell an extra gun to my brother-in-law I would have to make a phone call or fill out a web form of some kind. Would he have to provide his Social Security Number or other unique identifier to me?
What about my wife or other family members living with me? If my wife wanted a gun for self-defense for her birthday would I have to submit her for a background check? What if I bought a gun and let her use it - would she be breaking the law for possessing a gun without a background check?
Then there is inheritance. Who is going to process the background checks for this?
Will the list of transactions be kept confidential or made public? Newspapers have already published lists of people with concealed carry permits.
Assuming a state or municipality outlaws some particular type of gun, will the list of transactions be shared with them so that they can seize the weapons? Given some of the laws being considered right now, this is a very big worry for gun owners.
What about identity theft?
This is likely to be another law that is ignored. It will be very difficult to enforce. Again, a law that will be ignored or cannot be enforced is a bad law and should not be passed.
One thing that is unacknowledged in this debate is how much of our gun violence is drug and gang-related. This is why Chicago's murder rate is so much higher than other large cities. These people are already ignoring the law so new ones will not affect them.
Both issues have highly polarized extremes who are framing the debate. The anti-abortion people believe that abortion is murder. The anti-gun people believe that guns lead to murder. The pro-abortion and pro-gun people defend their position in terms of fundamental rights.
The anti-abortion and anti-gun people would like nothing less than a total ban. The pro-abortion and pro-gun people see any restrictions as the thin edge of a wedge that will eventually lead to a complete ban.
Of course, there are significant differences. No one is rushing out to have an abortion because it might be outlawed and there are tens of millions of gun owners who will never hurt a soul with their guns. Still, the intensity and polarization of the issues is similar.
The biggest difference is that the positions are reversed between the two. Liberals are pro-abortion and anti-gun while conservatives tend to be pro-gun and anti-abortion.
Let's look at the current set of proposals. I've done this before but now some concrete legislation has been introduced.
Most proposals that have been introduced concentrate on either assault weapons or high-capacity magazines. The assault weapon ban makes the least sense. These weapons are very common but are seldom used in crimes. A complete ban would be statistically insignificant (so small you couldn't see it on a chart showing gun violence). The main reason for going after these weapons is simply that they look scary. There is nothing about a pistol grip of folding stock that makes a gun more lethal.
The attack on high-capacity magazines makes a tiny bit of sense. The reasoning is that the few seconds it takes a shooter to change magazines might give his victims time to fight back or run. There is no actual evidence to support this, just a general feeling.
It should be pointed out that these proposals would outlaw the most popular rifle and pistol. Chances are very good that the laws will simply be ignored. In fact, in New York where such a ban already passed, thousands are vowing acts of civil disobedience by keeping their magazines. Any law that will be widely ignored is a bad law and should not be passed.
One proposal that is being pushed without any legislation yet being proposed is universal background checks. This is also known as "closing the gun show loophole". What it really means is regulating all private gun transactions. Because nothing has been proposed but the idea keeps being floated as "reasonable", talk of universal background checks in worrisome.
There are many open questions about how this would be handled. Presumably, if I wanted to sell an extra gun to my brother-in-law I would have to make a phone call or fill out a web form of some kind. Would he have to provide his Social Security Number or other unique identifier to me?
What about my wife or other family members living with me? If my wife wanted a gun for self-defense for her birthday would I have to submit her for a background check? What if I bought a gun and let her use it - would she be breaking the law for possessing a gun without a background check?
Then there is inheritance. Who is going to process the background checks for this?
Will the list of transactions be kept confidential or made public? Newspapers have already published lists of people with concealed carry permits.
Assuming a state or municipality outlaws some particular type of gun, will the list of transactions be shared with them so that they can seize the weapons? Given some of the laws being considered right now, this is a very big worry for gun owners.
What about identity theft?
This is likely to be another law that is ignored. It will be very difficult to enforce. Again, a law that will be ignored or cannot be enforced is a bad law and should not be passed.
One thing that is unacknowledged in this debate is how much of our gun violence is drug and gang-related. This is why Chicago's murder rate is so much higher than other large cities. These people are already ignoring the law so new ones will not affect them.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Tesla and the Times
New York Times reporter, John M. Broder, has been testing a new Tesla S model electric car. As part of his test he decided to try using it for a drive to Boston and back. It was not a happy experience and he wrote about it in last Sunday's Times. Tesla has fired back, claiming that he drove faster than he said, kept the interior of the car warmer, and didn't fully charge the car.
You can get a recap of everything here with links to the original pieces. One thing I have not seen is anything putting the whole trip in perspective.
Tesla's original idea was to build a top-end sports car. The idea was that these are never driven very far so battery life would not be a problem and they are so expensive that the cost of the batteries could be absorbed into the overall price. The Model S is a different matter. It is meant to be an affordable family sedan. "Affordable" is a relative term. The car starts at $52,400 for a short-range version that can go up to 160 miles. It tops out with the performance version with a range of up to 300 miles for $87,400.
I'm not sure which version Broder was using but he was given special instruction by Tesla including the location of fast-charge stations and some slower-charge stations that he could use in an emergency.
Broder did not fully charge the car at any of the stations. Instead he charged it until it showed that he had more than enough charge to reach his destination. Even that took something like 45 minutes at a fast charge station. If he had charged it at home it might have taken days.
Here's the thing - New York to Boston is a bit over 200 miles. Every car I've ever owned could do that on a single tank of gas with lots left over. One or two cars could have done the round trip on one tank. Even if I did stop for gas, that would take at most fifteen minutes including my wife running in for coffee and a potty break.
The Tesla has trouble doing this. That means it is not a substitute for a family's only car. Anyone who buys it and expects to leave town will need a second car. That is a problem for Tesla. $52,400 is a lot of money for a car that can't leave town.
Wired ran an article on this that suggested we judge the Tesla by the iPhone standard. An iPhone needs to be charged and a land-line doesn't but we accept this because the iPhone does so much more. This would be a valid measure if the Tesla offered features that a regular car does not. Being able to charge the car in my garage instead of stopping at the gas station once every week or so is not much of an incentive, especially if I forget to charge the car overnight.
Normally this would be a matter between Tesla and the NYT but the rest of us have an interest in this, too. The government gave Tesla a half-billion dollars to develop the Model S. So, in the name of global warming, the rest of us are subsidizing a car that only the top 5% can afford to drive.
You can get a recap of everything here with links to the original pieces. One thing I have not seen is anything putting the whole trip in perspective.
Tesla's original idea was to build a top-end sports car. The idea was that these are never driven very far so battery life would not be a problem and they are so expensive that the cost of the batteries could be absorbed into the overall price. The Model S is a different matter. It is meant to be an affordable family sedan. "Affordable" is a relative term. The car starts at $52,400 for a short-range version that can go up to 160 miles. It tops out with the performance version with a range of up to 300 miles for $87,400.
I'm not sure which version Broder was using but he was given special instruction by Tesla including the location of fast-charge stations and some slower-charge stations that he could use in an emergency.
Broder did not fully charge the car at any of the stations. Instead he charged it until it showed that he had more than enough charge to reach his destination. Even that took something like 45 minutes at a fast charge station. If he had charged it at home it might have taken days.
Here's the thing - New York to Boston is a bit over 200 miles. Every car I've ever owned could do that on a single tank of gas with lots left over. One or two cars could have done the round trip on one tank. Even if I did stop for gas, that would take at most fifteen minutes including my wife running in for coffee and a potty break.
The Tesla has trouble doing this. That means it is not a substitute for a family's only car. Anyone who buys it and expects to leave town will need a second car. That is a problem for Tesla. $52,400 is a lot of money for a car that can't leave town.
Wired ran an article on this that suggested we judge the Tesla by the iPhone standard. An iPhone needs to be charged and a land-line doesn't but we accept this because the iPhone does so much more. This would be a valid measure if the Tesla offered features that a regular car does not. Being able to charge the car in my garage instead of stopping at the gas station once every week or so is not much of an incentive, especially if I forget to charge the car overnight.
Normally this would be a matter between Tesla and the NYT but the rest of us have an interest in this, too. The government gave Tesla a half-billion dollars to develop the Model S. So, in the name of global warming, the rest of us are subsidizing a car that only the top 5% can afford to drive.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Obama, the Minimum Wage, and Fairness
If you are an employer then this is the message that President Obama had for you in his State of the Union speech last night, "Some rich guys have gotten a lot richer therefore you need to give your least skilled employees a 25% raise." If your business is like many then you will wonder where the money for this will come from. The President's answer to that seems to be a shrug and some platitudes about fairness.
If this raise actually happens then a lot of employers are going to look at ways of reducing their workforce or at least not allowing it to expand. That will hurt employment, especially for younger workers and minorities - the groups that have the highest unemployment rates now.
This is partly offset by the economic boost that will come from low-end workers having more money. Will it all balance out? Probably not.
During the Great Depression we had deflation - the dollar could buy more than previously. Logically with buying power going up and unemployment sky-high, wages should have gone down, at least for new hires. They did not because of government pressure. This was a major factor in the high unemployment rate of the Depression (I got this from the book The Forgotten Man).
Surprisingly, Progressives are not bothered by this. They would rather see fewer people make more money than see more people employed. You can see this by their insistence on unions. States with right to work laws have lower unemployment but lower average wages that states with strong labor laws. It is an acceptable tradeoff for one person to be unemployed so that others can make more.
The issue of fairness is also driving the debate on taxes. During the election campaign, Obama pushed a balance of tax increases on the rich and spending cuts. During the Fiscal Cliff negotiations, Republicans offered to increase revenue by closing loopholes as long as they could also flatten the tax rates. Obama refused and the Republicans eventually gave him most of what he asked for - a return to Clinton-era tax rates on the top wager-earners.
That was supposed to have been followed with spending cuts. Instead the President now wants further tax increases in the form of closing loopholes while keeping the higher tax rates. Any spending cuts are still unspecified and to be named in the future. All of this continues to be in the name of fairness. The rich have too much money so we have to redistribute it.
This is one reason that the economy continues to lag. Nothing can be done to stimulate the economy unless it passes the fairness test. At the same time, policies that promote fairness do not need to promote the economy.
I even saw some Progressives admit this during the run up to the Fiscal Cliff.
So the economy continues to lag with projections that a real recovery is at least two years away for the 5th year in a row.
If this raise actually happens then a lot of employers are going to look at ways of reducing their workforce or at least not allowing it to expand. That will hurt employment, especially for younger workers and minorities - the groups that have the highest unemployment rates now.
This is partly offset by the economic boost that will come from low-end workers having more money. Will it all balance out? Probably not.
During the Great Depression we had deflation - the dollar could buy more than previously. Logically with buying power going up and unemployment sky-high, wages should have gone down, at least for new hires. They did not because of government pressure. This was a major factor in the high unemployment rate of the Depression (I got this from the book The Forgotten Man).
Surprisingly, Progressives are not bothered by this. They would rather see fewer people make more money than see more people employed. You can see this by their insistence on unions. States with right to work laws have lower unemployment but lower average wages that states with strong labor laws. It is an acceptable tradeoff for one person to be unemployed so that others can make more.
The issue of fairness is also driving the debate on taxes. During the election campaign, Obama pushed a balance of tax increases on the rich and spending cuts. During the Fiscal Cliff negotiations, Republicans offered to increase revenue by closing loopholes as long as they could also flatten the tax rates. Obama refused and the Republicans eventually gave him most of what he asked for - a return to Clinton-era tax rates on the top wager-earners.
That was supposed to have been followed with spending cuts. Instead the President now wants further tax increases in the form of closing loopholes while keeping the higher tax rates. Any spending cuts are still unspecified and to be named in the future. All of this continues to be in the name of fairness. The rich have too much money so we have to redistribute it.
This is one reason that the economy continues to lag. Nothing can be done to stimulate the economy unless it passes the fairness test. At the same time, policies that promote fairness do not need to promote the economy.
I even saw some Progressives admit this during the run up to the Fiscal Cliff.
So the economy continues to lag with projections that a real recovery is at least two years away for the 5th year in a row.
Friday, February 08, 2013
Obama and the Drones
Michael Gerson has a defense of President Obama's use of drones to kill Americans involved with al Qaeda. He puts this into perspective against other US presidents who justified the use of preemptive force. He has several good points but there are still some issues that are specific to Obama.
First, using drones to kill Americans involved with terrorist organizations is justifiable in a war on terror but Obama has buried that term. The Left in general has maintained that the proper reaction to 9-11 should have been to treat it as a crime instead of an act of war. The Obama Administration has supported that position. At one point it planned to try 9-11 mastermind KSM in the civil courts. Even the mission that killed Osama bin Laden was supposed to have been given the option to capture him for trial. If foreign nationals are going to be treated as international criminals with the right to due process then why aren't American citizens being given the same rights?
The bigger issue is transparency. The Obama Administration promised to be totally transparent on this issue. Instead it has been totally opaque. One big sticking point is the question of how it is determined who is high enough in al Qaeda to be involved in planning. This is critical. The whole justification for the drone strikes is imminent threat. The strikes are supposed to be confined to people who are high enough to be involved in planning future strikes against the US. Other strikes have included people as "top al Qaeda officials" when they only had two or three people reporting to them. Is someone actually reviewing documentation showing that the targets are involved in planning or is it simply assumed that any American in al Qaeda is automatically a top official?
Two other factors should be taken into consideration. The first is that the drone strikes in general are causing tremendous ill will against us in the Muslim world. The second is that we may be violating international law by operating drones in neutral countries like Pakistan.
The President's top priority has to be protecting the country but if that means that Obama has reversed himself on means and methods used by the Bush Administration then he needs to say so. Instead his administration seems to be straddling the fence, rejecting the War on Terror while using war as an excuse for extra-legal activities.
First, using drones to kill Americans involved with terrorist organizations is justifiable in a war on terror but Obama has buried that term. The Left in general has maintained that the proper reaction to 9-11 should have been to treat it as a crime instead of an act of war. The Obama Administration has supported that position. At one point it planned to try 9-11 mastermind KSM in the civil courts. Even the mission that killed Osama bin Laden was supposed to have been given the option to capture him for trial. If foreign nationals are going to be treated as international criminals with the right to due process then why aren't American citizens being given the same rights?
The bigger issue is transparency. The Obama Administration promised to be totally transparent on this issue. Instead it has been totally opaque. One big sticking point is the question of how it is determined who is high enough in al Qaeda to be involved in planning. This is critical. The whole justification for the drone strikes is imminent threat. The strikes are supposed to be confined to people who are high enough to be involved in planning future strikes against the US. Other strikes have included people as "top al Qaeda officials" when they only had two or three people reporting to them. Is someone actually reviewing documentation showing that the targets are involved in planning or is it simply assumed that any American in al Qaeda is automatically a top official?
Two other factors should be taken into consideration. The first is that the drone strikes in general are causing tremendous ill will against us in the Muslim world. The second is that we may be violating international law by operating drones in neutral countries like Pakistan.
The President's top priority has to be protecting the country but if that means that Obama has reversed himself on means and methods used by the Bush Administration then he needs to say so. Instead his administration seems to be straddling the fence, rejecting the War on Terror while using war as an excuse for extra-legal activities.
Thursday, February 07, 2013
The Future of the Republicans
After losing two presidential elections in a row, there is a lot of pressure on the Republican Party to change. Recently Karl Rove announced an initiative to retain elected Republicans rather than letting them lose primary challenges. Others are calling for the Republicans to become Democrat-lite aka RINO (Republican In Name Only). Before we go too far let's look at the Democrats' recent history. It is easy to forget that they faced exactly the same challenge just eight years ago.
In 2000, Al Gore ran as a continuation of centrist Bill Clinton while George Bush ran as a centrist Republican (compassionate conservative). The election was very close but the Republicans retained control of both houses of Congress. They actually increased their control in the mid-term 2002 election.
In 2004, Howard Dean ran a campaign aimed at moving the party to the left. He was helped in this by the net-roots, a group of liberal activists who were disgusted by Clinton's centrism. The eventual candidate was John Kerry who was rated one of the three most liberal members of the Senate. Many Democrats admitted that they were not all that enthusiastic about Kerry but they hated Bush with a passion. They were surprised when Bush won reelection and retained control of Congress. There was serious talk about a permanent Republican majority.
So what did the Democrats do? Did they talk about how they needed to move to the center? No. They made Howard Dean their party chair and consolidated their move to the left. By the 2008 election, none of the candidates were talking about being centrists. They had all become progressives. They even threw Gore's running mate out of the party for not being anti-way.
They also learned to pick their battles. They no longer talked about gun control or abortion rights. Instead they talked about the divide between the rich and the poor.
The second mid-term elections are always hard on an incumbent. The newly-energized Democrats took advantage of that and of some missteps by Bush (including a general dissatisfaction with the Iraq war) and retook both houses of Congress.
In 2008, the top Republican candidates were three centrists (McCain, Romney, and Huckabee). The Democrats had a fight between three very liberal candidates (Obama, Clinton, and Edwards). Obama won the primaries and the general election, maintaining control of Congress.
Instead of moving to the left, the Republicans moved to the right, returning to the principles of Ronald Reagan.
The Democrats lost the mid-term election heavily. The Republicans took back the House and several statehouses.
The 2012 election was almost a mirror of the 2004 election. The Republicans had a moderate candidate who did not excite them but they hated President Obama. Obama won a decisive victory but not a crushing one like Reagan's 1984 victory or even Clinton's 1996 victory.
What lessons can we draw from this?
The biggest one is how quickly political fortunes can change.
The second one is that Democrats do much better when Obama is at the top of the ticket. The electorate is so evenly divided that voter turn-out is the deciding factor. In 2008 and 2012, Obama's presence at the head of the ticket brought in records numbers of Democrats. In 1210 the Democrats stayed home but the Republicans turned out. The number of Republican governors shows that Republicans can compete in enough states to win the presidency but many of those governors won in 2010 when Obama was not on the ticket.
The third lesson is that the Republicans need to learn how to pick their battles. At the same time they need to learn to repackage a core value. The Democrats are still the party of tax and spend but they packaged it as reducing the divide between the 1% and the rest of the country. The Republicans got cast as protectors of the rich. There are plenty of possibilities but they need a good hook like John Edwards's Two Americas.
Moving to the left will not help the Republicans. They can never compete with the Democrats on this. They will always be out-bid. Instead they need to explain why the Democrats are bad for the country.
As far as picking their battles, immigration is a good place to start. Eight years ago people were pouring across the border. That has largely stopped because of the poor economy. The Republicans need to acknowledge that reality and follow through with a plan that addresses the 11 million already here. Like the grand bargain on tax reform that they offered, they can claim that they are following in Reagan's footsteps.
The Republicans also need a charismatic candidate, something that they have not had since Reagan left office. Fortunately there are several governors who meet this qualification.
In 2000, Al Gore ran as a continuation of centrist Bill Clinton while George Bush ran as a centrist Republican (compassionate conservative). The election was very close but the Republicans retained control of both houses of Congress. They actually increased their control in the mid-term 2002 election.
In 2004, Howard Dean ran a campaign aimed at moving the party to the left. He was helped in this by the net-roots, a group of liberal activists who were disgusted by Clinton's centrism. The eventual candidate was John Kerry who was rated one of the three most liberal members of the Senate. Many Democrats admitted that they were not all that enthusiastic about Kerry but they hated Bush with a passion. They were surprised when Bush won reelection and retained control of Congress. There was serious talk about a permanent Republican majority.
So what did the Democrats do? Did they talk about how they needed to move to the center? No. They made Howard Dean their party chair and consolidated their move to the left. By the 2008 election, none of the candidates were talking about being centrists. They had all become progressives. They even threw Gore's running mate out of the party for not being anti-way.
They also learned to pick their battles. They no longer talked about gun control or abortion rights. Instead they talked about the divide between the rich and the poor.
The second mid-term elections are always hard on an incumbent. The newly-energized Democrats took advantage of that and of some missteps by Bush (including a general dissatisfaction with the Iraq war) and retook both houses of Congress.
In 2008, the top Republican candidates were three centrists (McCain, Romney, and Huckabee). The Democrats had a fight between three very liberal candidates (Obama, Clinton, and Edwards). Obama won the primaries and the general election, maintaining control of Congress.
Instead of moving to the left, the Republicans moved to the right, returning to the principles of Ronald Reagan.
The Democrats lost the mid-term election heavily. The Republicans took back the House and several statehouses.
The 2012 election was almost a mirror of the 2004 election. The Republicans had a moderate candidate who did not excite them but they hated President Obama. Obama won a decisive victory but not a crushing one like Reagan's 1984 victory or even Clinton's 1996 victory.
What lessons can we draw from this?
The biggest one is how quickly political fortunes can change.
The second one is that Democrats do much better when Obama is at the top of the ticket. The electorate is so evenly divided that voter turn-out is the deciding factor. In 2008 and 2012, Obama's presence at the head of the ticket brought in records numbers of Democrats. In 1210 the Democrats stayed home but the Republicans turned out. The number of Republican governors shows that Republicans can compete in enough states to win the presidency but many of those governors won in 2010 when Obama was not on the ticket.
The third lesson is that the Republicans need to learn how to pick their battles. At the same time they need to learn to repackage a core value. The Democrats are still the party of tax and spend but they packaged it as reducing the divide between the 1% and the rest of the country. The Republicans got cast as protectors of the rich. There are plenty of possibilities but they need a good hook like John Edwards's Two Americas.
Moving to the left will not help the Republicans. They can never compete with the Democrats on this. They will always be out-bid. Instead they need to explain why the Democrats are bad for the country.
As far as picking their battles, immigration is a good place to start. Eight years ago people were pouring across the border. That has largely stopped because of the poor economy. The Republicans need to acknowledge that reality and follow through with a plan that addresses the 11 million already here. Like the grand bargain on tax reform that they offered, they can claim that they are following in Reagan's footsteps.
The Republicans also need a charismatic candidate, something that they have not had since Reagan left office. Fortunately there are several governors who meet this qualification.
Wednesday, February 06, 2013
Senator Obama vs President Obama
The US government claims the right to assassinate US citizens living outside the country and who are members of certain groups, mainly linked with al Qaeda. The justification for this is that membership in these groups constitutes an eminent threat, even if there is no actual knowledge of any plans. Assassinations are supposed to be limited to top leaders but the criteria for deciding who is a top leader is mushy. The process where a citizen is identified and authorization given has been kept secret.
Similarly, the US claims that armed drones have only killed enemy combatants with no innocent citizen casualties at all. This is possible because of the assumption that anyone within the blast radius of the target must also be an enemy combatant.
One wonders how Senator Obama would have reacted to this under President Bush? I suspect that he would have been highly critical.
We know for certain that he was critical of raising the debt limit because of deficit spending although the Bush deficit at the time was a fraction of the deficit under Obama.
And of course, back when he was candidate for the Senate, Obama gave a speech saying that there was no Red America or Blue America. President Obama has presided over the most polarized administration in living memory.
Just pointing these things out to people who haven't been paying attention.
Similarly, the US claims that armed drones have only killed enemy combatants with no innocent citizen casualties at all. This is possible because of the assumption that anyone within the blast radius of the target must also be an enemy combatant.
One wonders how Senator Obama would have reacted to this under President Bush? I suspect that he would have been highly critical.
We know for certain that he was critical of raising the debt limit because of deficit spending although the Bush deficit at the time was a fraction of the deficit under Obama.
And of course, back when he was candidate for the Senate, Obama gave a speech saying that there was no Red America or Blue America. President Obama has presided over the most polarized administration in living memory.
Just pointing these things out to people who haven't been paying attention.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Fat Shaming?
Daniel Callahan, a senior research scholar and president emeritus of The Hastings Center, put out a new paper this week calling for a renewed emphasis on social pressure against heavy people -- what some may call fat-shaming -- including public posters that would pose questions like this:
"If you are overweight or obese, are you pleased with the way that you look?"
The article does inject a note of sanity, quoting Dr. Tom Inge, an expert in childhood obesity at the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center.
Callahan is a former smoker who figures that since he was shamed out of smoking, the same approach would work for weight. It is too bad that he is being given any voice at all about this since the two are not comparable."No amount of teasing, probing questions about what they wish they could do, or medications seem to help," Inge said. "So if one is proposing to help them by more stigmatization, that would seem at once both antithetical and unethical."
You either smoke or you do not. There is no minimum amount of tobacco that you have to consume to live.
On the other hand, you do have to eat to live. Granted, if you eat too much you become overweight, but you cannot just quit eating.
Also, once you become overweight, it is very difficult to lose the weight. You are fighting your body. Your metabolism slows, trying to recover the lost calories. Take two people who weigh the same. The first used to weigh more but lost weight. The second has always weighed that amount. The first person has to consume fewer calories than the second to keep from gaining the weight back. At the same time, the first person's body is sending signals, calling for more calories.
Think about that. If you want to lose weight then you have to go hungry, every day for the rest of your life.
Yes, if you shame people enough then they might prefer constant hunger to weighing more but what you are really doing is inducing eating disorders. What else can you call it when someone is constantly hungry but ashamed to eat?
This approach carries a big risk of causing eating disorders among people, especially women, who do not need to lose weight.
Around 30 years ago I shared an office with someone who had an eating disorder. I pointed this out to her and she agreed that she had some of the characteristics of an anorexic but insisted that this did not apply to her because she wasn't thin, she was fat. Trust me, she was not fat.
So the Today Show is repeating the advice from this quack - develop an eating disorder or face increased social stigma.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Gun Myths
There are a lot of myths floating around about "assault guns". Currently this term usually means some variation of the AR-15.
For the last few years variants of the AR-15 have been the most popular rifle. There are millions of them out there but fewer that 700 people are killed by rifles annually. Not only is this not the weapon of choice for most murders, it comes behind knives and other sharp weapons.
It is not a military weapon. It is made to look like a military weapon. You have to pull the trigger for each shot (semi-automatic). Military weapons have an option to keep firing as long as you hold the trigger (full automatic).
There are several reasons why the AR-15 is so popular. Some people like it because it does look like a military weapon. Others like it because it is light-weight and dependable. It is also versatile. I have heard it described as a "platform" because it is so modular. It is possible to swap out most of the parts. You can change the stock, add or remove the grip. There is a lot of controversy among shooters about the best type of sight. This is easily changed and you can use different types of sights depending on the type of shooting you are doing. Some people want to be able to shoot different caliber bullets. Normally that means buying multiple guns. With the AR-15 you can swap out the barrel and a few other parts. This saves a lot of money over buying an entire second gun.
A lot has been made of the high-capacity magazine. There is some magical thinking involved here. Magazines were developed to make reloading faster. The State of New York seems to think that limiting a magazine to 7 rounds will keep a shooter from carrying multiple magazines (or keep him from carrying illegal high-capacity ones). In an open environment that might give people time to run but in a closed space like a school or theater it just means that the shooter has to change magazines more often. The Aurora shooter did reload multiple times.
Sports shooters do have a legitimate use for high-capacity magazines. People at a shooting range go to shoot. They usually have a limited amount of time and don't want to waste it reloading. Neither do they want to pay extra to carry multiple magazines.
Some people have insisted that these guns are more deadly than regular guns because they were designed for military use. They claim that these guns were designed to kill people. Actually, military weapons involve a series of trade-offs. They have to be light enough to be easily carried. The standard 9mm NATO is not the most lethal out there. I remember a lot of complaints when the army switched from .45 to 9mm that the new ammunition did not have the same stopping power. A shotgun loaded with deer slugs is much deadlier but it is painful to shoot and not as accurate at longer ranges.
Ironically, military ammunition is less lethal than sporting ammunition. According to the Geneva Convention, it has a full metal jacket. That makes it pass cleanly through the body and makes the wounds more survivable. Hunters commonly use hollow-point bullets which mushroom on impact and create bigger wounds.
Historically, the military has been slow to implement advanced in gun technology. Sportsmen had rifles centuries before they were standard issue to soldiers. At the turn of the last century, the US military did not want to army its troops with rifles that could accept five round clips. They felt that soldiers would aim more carefully if it took them longer to load. That attitude continued in Germany through WWII. Similarly, semi-automatic and full-automatic weapons were considered too expensive and delicate for field use well into the 20th century.
So, we have tens of millions of sportsmen being told that their preferred weapon is too dangerous to be owned based on misinformation and false urgency. Is it any wonder that there is significant push-back?
For the last few years variants of the AR-15 have been the most popular rifle. There are millions of them out there but fewer that 700 people are killed by rifles annually. Not only is this not the weapon of choice for most murders, it comes behind knives and other sharp weapons.
It is not a military weapon. It is made to look like a military weapon. You have to pull the trigger for each shot (semi-automatic). Military weapons have an option to keep firing as long as you hold the trigger (full automatic).
There are several reasons why the AR-15 is so popular. Some people like it because it does look like a military weapon. Others like it because it is light-weight and dependable. It is also versatile. I have heard it described as a "platform" because it is so modular. It is possible to swap out most of the parts. You can change the stock, add or remove the grip. There is a lot of controversy among shooters about the best type of sight. This is easily changed and you can use different types of sights depending on the type of shooting you are doing. Some people want to be able to shoot different caliber bullets. Normally that means buying multiple guns. With the AR-15 you can swap out the barrel and a few other parts. This saves a lot of money over buying an entire second gun.
A lot has been made of the high-capacity magazine. There is some magical thinking involved here. Magazines were developed to make reloading faster. The State of New York seems to think that limiting a magazine to 7 rounds will keep a shooter from carrying multiple magazines (or keep him from carrying illegal high-capacity ones). In an open environment that might give people time to run but in a closed space like a school or theater it just means that the shooter has to change magazines more often. The Aurora shooter did reload multiple times.
Sports shooters do have a legitimate use for high-capacity magazines. People at a shooting range go to shoot. They usually have a limited amount of time and don't want to waste it reloading. Neither do they want to pay extra to carry multiple magazines.
Some people have insisted that these guns are more deadly than regular guns because they were designed for military use. They claim that these guns were designed to kill people. Actually, military weapons involve a series of trade-offs. They have to be light enough to be easily carried. The standard 9mm NATO is not the most lethal out there. I remember a lot of complaints when the army switched from .45 to 9mm that the new ammunition did not have the same stopping power. A shotgun loaded with deer slugs is much deadlier but it is painful to shoot and not as accurate at longer ranges.
Ironically, military ammunition is less lethal than sporting ammunition. According to the Geneva Convention, it has a full metal jacket. That makes it pass cleanly through the body and makes the wounds more survivable. Hunters commonly use hollow-point bullets which mushroom on impact and create bigger wounds.
Historically, the military has been slow to implement advanced in gun technology. Sportsmen had rifles centuries before they were standard issue to soldiers. At the turn of the last century, the US military did not want to army its troops with rifles that could accept five round clips. They felt that soldiers would aim more carefully if it took them longer to load. That attitude continued in Germany through WWII. Similarly, semi-automatic and full-automatic weapons were considered too expensive and delicate for field use well into the 20th century.
So, we have tens of millions of sportsmen being told that their preferred weapon is too dangerous to be owned based on misinformation and false urgency. Is it any wonder that there is significant push-back?
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Global Warming - the fine print
Earlier this month the headlines screamed "2012 Hottest Year in History". If you looked closely, the actual story was "2012 Hottest Year in History in the US". No one ever mentioned that last part. Instead we heard about how this should satisfy the skeptics (or "deniers") once and for all. Immediate action is needed! We have to start taxing carbon right now!!
But what about that fine print? When the US has a cold year the experts tell us that the only thing that matters is global temperature.
So what was the global temperature last year? It turns out that 2012 was the 10th hottest on record. While that still sounds hot, you have to remember that we seem to have reached a plateau 14 years ago. the world isn't getting any cooler but it isn't getting any warmer, either. That goes against all predictions of global warming. As CO2 increases, the temperature is supposed to go up. Period. A few years without a rise can be dismissed as an anomaly but 14 years is becoming significant. If the models do not predict such a long pause then there is something fundamentally wrong with the models.
That is why you hear about the US temperature but not the world temperature. The world did not warm last year, the cold, Canadian air was deflected by warm Pacific air. We got someone else's warm temperatures and the cold that we normally get went elsewhere. This meant that it was warmer than usual in the US and colder elsewhere.
And that is why you have to look at global temperatures instead of local.
But what about that fine print? When the US has a cold year the experts tell us that the only thing that matters is global temperature.
So what was the global temperature last year? It turns out that 2012 was the 10th hottest on record. While that still sounds hot, you have to remember that we seem to have reached a plateau 14 years ago. the world isn't getting any cooler but it isn't getting any warmer, either. That goes against all predictions of global warming. As CO2 increases, the temperature is supposed to go up. Period. A few years without a rise can be dismissed as an anomaly but 14 years is becoming significant. If the models do not predict such a long pause then there is something fundamentally wrong with the models.
That is why you hear about the US temperature but not the world temperature. The world did not warm last year, the cold, Canadian air was deflected by warm Pacific air. We got someone else's warm temperatures and the cold that we normally get went elsewhere. This meant that it was warmer than usual in the US and colder elsewhere.
And that is why you have to look at global temperatures instead of local.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
The Debt and the President
President Obama has made it clear that he expects Congress to raise the debt limit without any restrictions. There will be no deals tying a debt increase to long-term cuts. He is supposed to have warned House Republicans that if the debt limit hasn't been raised by his State of the Union speech, he will use it to denounce them.
When it is pointed out to him that he voted against an increase while a senator, Obama gets testy and insists that the election was all about this and adds, "And by the way, the American people agreed with me."
He is wrong on this but it does not matter. He campaigned on making some cuts while raising taxes on the rich. He did not get much more specific than that because he did not want to be tied to election promises. Now he is using that vagueness to insist that the election gives him a mandate for anything he wants.
He will never be on a ballot again which is why it does not matter. He will not have to answer to the voters for his actions. In the meantime he has convinced himself that his reelection gives him blanket approval.
He is mistaken about a couple of other things, also. He seems to be convinced that the fight over spending is about him. He has taken a policy and personalized it. In his mind, if you complain about the massive debt you are attacking him.
And he seems to think that the debt doesn't matter. Either that or he recognizes that it has to be addressed but does not want to be known as the president who cut Social Security.
Obama will get what he wants for the same reason that he could vote against the debt limit increase when he was in Congress. He knows that the Republicans will do the responsible thing. He has already shown that he is willing to destroy the world's economy in order to get his way and he knows that the Republicans will not do this.
He refuses to come up with a Plan B. If he had one he might be forced to use it. Instead he wants an all-or-nothing deal. He also knows that the Republicans will get blamed if the debt ceiling is not raised.
The problem is that the debt is dangerously high and projected spending on entitlements needs to be addressed as soon as possible. It looks like it will be at least four years before anyone in the White House is willing to admit this.
When it is pointed out to him that he voted against an increase while a senator, Obama gets testy and insists that the election was all about this and adds, "And by the way, the American people agreed with me."
He is wrong on this but it does not matter. He campaigned on making some cuts while raising taxes on the rich. He did not get much more specific than that because he did not want to be tied to election promises. Now he is using that vagueness to insist that the election gives him a mandate for anything he wants.
He will never be on a ballot again which is why it does not matter. He will not have to answer to the voters for his actions. In the meantime he has convinced himself that his reelection gives him blanket approval.
He is mistaken about a couple of other things, also. He seems to be convinced that the fight over spending is about him. He has taken a policy and personalized it. In his mind, if you complain about the massive debt you are attacking him.
And he seems to think that the debt doesn't matter. Either that or he recognizes that it has to be addressed but does not want to be known as the president who cut Social Security.
Obama will get what he wants for the same reason that he could vote against the debt limit increase when he was in Congress. He knows that the Republicans will do the responsible thing. He has already shown that he is willing to destroy the world's economy in order to get his way and he knows that the Republicans will not do this.
He refuses to come up with a Plan B. If he had one he might be forced to use it. Instead he wants an all-or-nothing deal. He also knows that the Republicans will get blamed if the debt ceiling is not raised.
The problem is that the debt is dangerously high and projected spending on entitlements needs to be addressed as soon as possible. It looks like it will be at least four years before anyone in the White House is willing to admit this.
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
Gun Control Round Two
In the immediate aftermath of the shooting of elementary school children at Sandy Hook, there was a loud call for new gun control. The media insisted that this time something must happen.
Since the shooting took place in December nothing could actually happen until January at the earliest. By that time, things had cooled and gun proponents had a chance to push back.
Yesterday was the kick-off of round two. This was lead by General McChrystal and Gabby Giffords.
McChrystal was quoted as being against assault rifles:
McChrystal's opinions are being used selectively. He also cautions against our current strategy of drones. His support for gun control was front-page news but I hadn't heard about his opinion on drones until I searched for his quote on guns.
Gabby Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly (or a ghost writer using their names) wrote a column for USA Today. This has a number of disingenuous phrases. For example:
Several things stand out. The word "astounding" for example is given without any qualification. Are mass shootings on the rise or are they just better reported? Yes, an extended ammunition magazine was used but I have it on good authority that those add so much weight to a gun that they make it difficult to aim and much more likely to jam.
The term "extended ammunition clip" is a red flag. The proper term is a magazine. A clip holds cartridges together until until they are loaded. A magazine encases the cartridges. Mark Kelly is ex-military. It is hard to believe that he would make that mistake. That makes me wonder how closely he read the column printed under his name.
The number "30,000" is also a red flag. That includes suicides and accidents, mainly suicides. Numerous studies have shown that the suicide rate is not affected by the availability of guns. They are just included in order to pad the figures. Calling suicides and accidents "gun violence" is like calling automobile deaths "car violence". The actual number of homicides is closer to 12,000 than 30,000. Of that 12,000, only a tiny number are mass shootings or caused by assault weapons.
If the problem is mass shootings then we are only talking about 11 in two years. Numbers like 30,000 are brought in to give the issue a false sense of urgency.
The column continues
Upon analysis, this part gets very interesting. This paragraph claims that wise policy has conquered disease but in the last two years, more people have died from the flu than from mass shootings. In a rational debate we would look at the relative number of deaths and devote our resources accordingly. This is an emotional appeal, not a rational one so no numbers are given.
They talk about the horrors of the well-financed gun lobby then continue:
You would never know from this paragraph that the murder rate has been dropping for years and is half what it was 20 years ago. Background checks will not stop criminals. They are already breaking the law and they are seldom involved in mass shootings (the criminal who shot two firemen does not count as a mass shooting). As for the mentally ill, a common thread with mass shootings is looking back and wondering why the shooter hasn't been declared mentally ill? Background checks will not stop people from buying guns unless we become better at identifying them ahead of time.
The statement about gun owners not being responsible is puzzling? Do they think that I will be in more trouble if my stolen car is involved in a fatality than if my stolen gun is? Or do they think that fatal shootings are treated more lightly than fatal auto accidents?
And these changes are...? They continue on for several paragraphs but never offer any specific proposals. From context we can assume that they want to require background checks on all gun purchases and outlaw high-capacity magazines, semi-automatics, and high-velocity ammunition but they never commit themselves. Of course, if they committed themselves then the flaws in their proposals would be open to criticism.
They also promise that they will come up with funding to match the NRA. Where will this come from?
Finally, notice the bit about having their guns locked in a safe at home? The message here is that it is ok for you to have a gun as long as it is locked away and unusable.
Since the shooting took place in December nothing could actually happen until January at the earliest. By that time, things had cooled and gun proponents had a chance to push back.
Yesterday was the kick-off of round two. This was lead by General McChrystal and Gabby Giffords.
McChrystal was quoted as being against assault rifles:
I spent a career carrying typically either an M16 or an M4 Carbine. An M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round which is 5.56 mm at about 3000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It's designed for that," McChrystal explained. "That's what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America
McChrystal's opinions are being used selectively. He also cautions against our current strategy of drones. His support for gun control was front-page news but I hadn't heard about his opinion on drones until I searched for his quote on guns.
Other things not mentioned - McChrystal was relieved of command after reports came out of him allowing his staff to openly mock President Obama. The type of weapon he refers to - an assault rifle (not an assault gun) is only a tiny part of gun violence."What scares me about drone strikes is how they are perceived around the world," he said in an interview. "The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes ... is much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who've never seen one or seen the effects of one."
McChrystal said the use of drones exacerbates a "perception of American arrogance that says, 'Well we can fly where we want, we can shoot where we want, because we can.''
Gabby Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly (or a ghost writer using their names) wrote a column for USA Today. This has a number of disingenuous phrases. For example:
America has seen an astounding 11 mass shootings since a madman used a semiautomatic pistol with an extended ammunition clip to shoot me and kill six others. Gun violence kills more than 30,000 Americans annually.
Several things stand out. The word "astounding" for example is given without any qualification. Are mass shootings on the rise or are they just better reported? Yes, an extended ammunition magazine was used but I have it on good authority that those add so much weight to a gun that they make it difficult to aim and much more likely to jam.
The term "extended ammunition clip" is a red flag. The proper term is a magazine. A clip holds cartridges together until until they are loaded. A magazine encases the cartridges. Mark Kelly is ex-military. It is hard to believe that he would make that mistake. That makes me wonder how closely he read the column printed under his name.
The number "30,000" is also a red flag. That includes suicides and accidents, mainly suicides. Numerous studies have shown that the suicide rate is not affected by the availability of guns. They are just included in order to pad the figures. Calling suicides and accidents "gun violence" is like calling automobile deaths "car violence". The actual number of homicides is closer to 12,000 than 30,000. Of that 12,000, only a tiny number are mass shootings or caused by assault weapons.
If the problem is mass shootings then we are only talking about 11 in two years. Numbers like 30,000 are brought in to give the issue a false sense of urgency.
The column continues
This country is known for using its determination and ingenuity to solve problems, big and small. Wise policy has conquered disease, protected us from dangerous products and substances, and made transportation safer. But when it comes to protecting our communities from gun violence, we're not even trying — and for the worst of reasons.
Upon analysis, this part gets very interesting. This paragraph claims that wise policy has conquered disease but in the last two years, more people have died from the flu than from mass shootings. In a rational debate we would look at the relative number of deaths and devote our resources accordingly. This is an emotional appeal, not a rational one so no numbers are given.
They talk about the horrors of the well-financed gun lobby then continue:
As a result, we are more vulnerable to gun violence. Weapons designed for the battlefield have a home in our streets. Criminals and the mentally ill can easily purchase guns by avoiding background checks. Firearm accessories designed for killing at a high rate are legal and widely available. And gun owners are less responsible for the misuse of their weapons than they are for their automobiles.
You would never know from this paragraph that the murder rate has been dropping for years and is half what it was 20 years ago. Background checks will not stop criminals. They are already breaking the law and they are seldom involved in mass shootings (the criminal who shot two firemen does not count as a mass shooting). As for the mentally ill, a common thread with mass shootings is looking back and wondering why the shooter hasn't been declared mentally ill? Background checks will not stop people from buying guns unless we become better at identifying them ahead of time.
The statement about gun owners not being responsible is puzzling? Do they think that I will be in more trouble if my stolen car is involved in a fatality than if my stolen gun is? Or do they think that fatal shootings are treated more lightly than fatal auto accidents?
Forget the boogeyman of big, bad government coming to dispossess you of your firearms. As a Western woman and a Persian Gulf War combat veteran who have exercised our Second Amendment rights, we don't want to take away your guns any more than we want to give up the two guns we have locked in a safe at home. What we do want is what the majority of NRA members and other Americans want: responsible changes in our laws to require responsible gun ownership and reduce gun violence.
And these changes are...? They continue on for several paragraphs but never offer any specific proposals. From context we can assume that they want to require background checks on all gun purchases and outlaw high-capacity magazines, semi-automatics, and high-velocity ammunition but they never commit themselves. Of course, if they committed themselves then the flaws in their proposals would be open to criticism.
They also promise that they will come up with funding to match the NRA. Where will this come from?
Finally, notice the bit about having their guns locked in a safe at home? The message here is that it is ok for you to have a gun as long as it is locked away and unusable.
Tuesday, January 08, 2013
The Problems with a Democratic Government
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
~ Winston Churchill
Another inherent problem in a democracy is the "cruel majority" where the majority votes to suppress a minority.
There are hints of all of these problems in Egypt. The majority party does not really care for democracy and began investigating the opposition for treason. Also, their new constitution limits the rights on Christians and Jews.
Our own government was created during a period of distrust for strong governments so checks and balances were built in to prevent these problems. We have a strong two-party system where neither party has enough of a majority to suppress the other. We have regularly scheduled elections which are harder to suppress than the election-on-demand that other countries have. Minority rights are enshrined in the Constitution which was designed to be difficult to change.
There is one problem that we have not been able to avoid - the problem of over-promising. Our government has made promises it cannot keep and it has become politically impossible to do anything about it.
Some of the promises were made in good faith. Social Security is an example. The biggest problem with Social Security is demographics. Our birth rate is dropping and seniors are living longer. Social Security has always been a program where the benefits paid to the retired come from the current workforce. Yes, there has always been a surplus but that was never meant to be an investment fund. We are approaching a time when more people will be supported by a smaller workforce.
Medicare and Medicaid have similar problems which are made worse by the fact that medical costs have grown faster than projected ever since the programs were created.
These problems are not going to go away but action will be politically difficult. Because of promises made decades ago, people feel entitled to these programs without change.
If both parties acted with one voice on this then something could be done as happened with Social Security in the 1980s. The Republicans have made some proposals but the Democrats have rejected them.
There are two issues driving this. One is that the Democrats recognized that they obtain a political advantage by claiming that these programs do not need reform. If they admit that there are any problems at all they blame the rich for not paying enough.
The other problem is that the current crop of Democrats believe in big government. They point to these programs as successful examples of government in action. Admitting that there are problems cripples their argument. So they deny reality.
This is where the problem with democracy comes in. We have two parties - one says that the programs are in trouble and that they will cut benefits. The other party says that the programs are strong and that they will save them. In a closely divided electorate the promise that, "You can have anything you want and the rich will pay for it." is the winning argument.
This is the argument at the core of the Fiscal Cliff and the Debt Limit talks. The Republicans want some action before we reach a crisis, the Democrats refuse to even discuss it and point to the last election as justification for their lack of action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)