The Philipic

Get ready to hear this word a lot: Reconciliation

Ξ October 16th, 2009 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Politics |

Reconciliation is an obscure Senate rule established in the 1970’s under what is known as the “Byrd Rule” to allow for the bypassing of filibusters in certain circumstances.  Democrats have started to process to use the rule to pass the House version of national health care (H.R. 3200).  National Review interviewed Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis) to get a little bit of background:

“The reconciliation process was designed for the budget and to help reduce deficits and debt. Now it’s being used to create new entitlement programs. . . .”

“[B]oth sides will have an argument with the Senate parliamentarian about the Byrd rule, which says that parts of a bill can be eliminated if they do not directly reduce the deficit. It also says that you can’t bring incidental things into the bill. It’s like going to court.”

“Then the Democratic-appointed parliamentarian comes down with a ruling, saying whether this provision is in or out of the bill. It will look at subsidies, too,” says Ryan. “The question will be whether community rating — where health-insurance companies are mandated to provide coverage — is a direct-spending policy. The argument will revolve around these policies, and their need to go into effect, or not, and their fiscal outcomes.”

“A few years ago, we tried to pass medical-liability reform, which is always filibustered in the Senate,” recalls Ryan. “We said that if we stick it in reconciliation, we can pass it, since tort reform, according to the CBO, will reduce the federal government’s health-care costs. The parliamentarian said no, saying it was not a money-saving policy. We lost that one. We’ve also tried to stick ANWR [drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge] in reconciliation before, arguing that it was a revenue-raising provision. We got it in there, but it didn’t work.”

“Using reconciliation is an art form, not a science,” says Ryan. Republicans “will have a lot of room to fight.”

“Using the tort-reform precedent from our own experience a few years ago, Republicans will be able to argue that a lot of the junk the Democrats want can’t go in the bill,” says Ryan. “That’s where Republican leaders like Senator Jon Kyl will be able to make some major arguments against the use of reconciliation.”

I suspect we’re going to be seeing a lot of abuse of this rule in the future, and a lot of discussion about whether or not to eliminate it.

On PBS Tonight: The Power of the Poor

Ξ October 14th, 2009 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Intellectual |

There is a program tonight on PBS titled “The Power of the Poor”, presented by Peruvian Economist Hernando de Soto (yes, just like the explorer).  I’ve been a big fan of de Soto ever since college, when I read his book The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else.

His basic contention is that the fundamental difference between cronically destitute nations and prosperous ones is the ability of the common people to own and leverage property.  He did a study, examining several very prosperous area, such as Hong Kong (pre-handover) and the US against places such as Egypt, to determine the number of bureaucratic steps needed to create a legal business.  In the US and Hong Kong, it was only a handful of steps – in poor nations it would frequently take over a hundred, some not legal, in order to start a small business.   De Soto’s contention is that the chief result of this inability to legally own businesses and property is that these nations have locked up a great deal of wealth that the poor would otherwise be able to leverage – it’s impossible to get a loan to expand or improve your business or property if you can’t get a loan because the bank can’t see evidence that you actually own anything.

De Soto understands how capitalism works at a very low level, and how it benefits the poor, far better than the talking heads you see on nightly news programs.  I really look forward to watching the program.

The Nobel Peace Prize is a Joke

Ξ October 9th, 2009 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Politics |

Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.

The submission deadline for candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize is February 1st. That means Obama was nominated only weeks after becoming President.

Who can say, in all honesty, that Obama is even remotely more deserving of the award than Morgan Tsvangirai, a man who had is skull split open and repeatedly beaten by government thugs for peacefully opposing the corrupt and disastrous Mugabe regime?  A man, who just last year, without violent revolt or armed resistance, became Prime Minister of Zimbabwe?

The Nobel Peace Prize is a farce.