Ξ November 30th, 2010 | → Comments Off | ∇ Politics |
I was fairly ambivalent about Wikileaks until their “Collateral Murder” shenanigans, at which point it started to become clear what they were all about – big splashes against soft targets.
Apart from the Collateral Murder stuff, which was pretty blatant spin and bias on Wikileaks part, none of the stuff they have released has offered any illumination on to what happens in the world. Iran works with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Pakistan is two-faced. China is worried about North Korea. Most of the Arab world is afraid of Iran. This isn’t ground-breaking stuff. But, because of the massive nature of the files involved, it does damage. Who knows what inadvertent detail was left in?
Wikileaks tries takes a principled stand, saying that any “collateral damage” is the fault of the US government for being so secretive, but all these things prove to an amazing degree that the US *isn’t* covering stuff up. Additionally, Wikileaks routinely operates in a very secretive manner – not detailing who is providing monetary or logistical support. As a result, their principles seem to be little more than a fig leaf to justify their slash-and-burn against the US.
The thing is, there are already outlets for whistle-blowers in the US. We have an active and adversarial press corp. Where Wikileaks should be focused are societies where whistle-blowers have no where to turn – China, Burma, Syria, Libya, etc. Rather than focus on their dark corners of the world, however, Wikileaks seems to be more interested in makes waves by going after the US. So I don’t have much respect for their intellectual honesty.
Ξ November 29th, 2010 | → Comments Off | ∇ Politics |
Perhaps there is more to this than initially reported, but some of the quotes cited by the Wall Street Journal are very interesting:
[N]ew federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26,” [executive director of benefit and pension funds for 1199SEIU] Behroozi wrote in a letter to members Oct. 22. “Our limited resources are already stretched as far as possible, and meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible.”
New regulations mandating expanded coverage expose insurance companies to more risk. Exposing insurance agencies to more risk results in more cost in order to cover outlays. More cost means those at the edges get squeezed.
Obamacare requires that the SEIU provide plans with expanded coverage to their members, namely that they provide coverage of children until the age of 26. Those plans cost more money. The SEIU chapter doesn’t have the funds necessary to afford those plans. They might be able to afford plans that provide coverage until, say, 18, but regulations make those plans illegal. Hence, they must choose between a plan they cannot afford, or no plan at all.
Ξ November 25th, 2010 | → Comments Off | ∇ Politics |
Democrats have been making hay over a $200 million piece of legislation proposed by Senator Kyl of Arizona, claiming hypocrisy because Republican Senators have just vowed to forgo earmarks. The legislation sets aside the money for an Arizona Indian tribe. Sounds like an earmark, right?
Well, turns out it’s a little bit more complicated. A few years ago, several groups in the south-west sued the federal government over it’s management of water rights in the area. The Indian tribe in the legislation was party to it, along with a number of black farmers. The government reached an agreement with the plaintiffs, and this legislation was introduced to resolve the federal governments obligations to the Arizona Indian tribe. Congress has the power of the purse, and a state’s senator introducing legislation to meet the federal government’s obligations to members of their state does make a certain amount of sense.
Is it an earmark? Maybe-perhaps, but it certainly seems like a different beast from the Bridge-to-Nowhere or all the Robert F. Bird Memorial such-and-suches of West Virginia.
Ξ November 23rd, 2010 | → Comments Off | ∇ Politics |
Been thinking about the Republican primaries for 2012. By my estimation, there are three front-runner candidates: Palin, Romney and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey. They all have their pluses and minuses that could alternately propel them or drag them down. But there is one name that isn’t being thrown about, that is dismissed out of hand, but begs to be followed with, “although . . . ”
Jeb Bush.
Bill Clinton, one of the nations most insightful political operatives, managed to sum up the culture of the two parties when he said, “Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love.” Republicans almost always nominate the person for whom it is their “turn”. This time around, one can argue for both Palin and Romney as being “their turn”. Romney was the conservative favorite last election, and continues to work behind the scenes and with the intelligentsia. He’ll have the support of the National Review types. Palin was the vice-Presidential nominee last time, and has managed to ride the Tea Party wave, keeping her visibility high. She’ll have the support of the WorldNetDaily types.
However, both have strong downsides. Romney is not well trusted by the base – they sense that while he says all the right things, he was never able to explain why he designed and fought for Romneycare, which bears a striking resemblance to Obamacare. Given the outrage of the party over the issue, unless he can come up with a really good explanation, it’s doubtful he’ll be able to get the popular support he needs to get the nomination.
Palin, regardless of what you think of her qualifications (and I think she’s far more qualified than given credit for), is a highly polarizing figure, with her negatives regularly exceeding her approval ratings. Many insiders don’t believe she is capable of winning – that she can’t overcome the hurdles that the polling shows are in her path. Even in a favorable election cycle, the voters are willing to go only so far, as races in Alaska, Nevada and Delaware this cycle have shown. She must first bring down her negatives before she can launch a viable campaign.
Which leaves Chris Christie, the wunderkind of New Jersey, who is picking fights and standing his ground, and actually articulating why he’s right. He’s captured lighting in a bottle since his election in 2009, and is probably the most popular Republican nationwide right now. Tea Party people love him, conservatives love him. The only obstacle in his path is his consistent, Sherman-like refusal to run in 2012. Given how stubborn he can be when people try to get him to do things he doesn’t want to do, I think it’s safe to take him at his word that he’s not going to run.
There are other candidates that are being mentioned, but I suspect both sides, Tea Party and intelligentsia, will line up behind Palin and Romney – I don’t see anyone else being able to supplant them from their positions. Neither will be really acceptable to the other side, and it’ll be a nasty fight, I think.
But there is one person, who has a great deal of respect on both sides – Jeb Bush. He fits the mold of Republicans “falling in line” – he from the Bush dynasty. He was suppose to be the one to run for President in 2000 (he lost his bid to become Florida’s governor the first time around). He was wildly successful as Florida’s governor. His support for the Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio was crucial. He’s very well regarded by the intelligentsia. What’s more, he’s a Bush that’s capable of public speaking. In fact, he would have run in 2008 most likely, and would by a shoe-in for the 2012 nomination if it weren’t for one fact: his last name is Bush.
But, in a deeply divided primary, where both side’s candidates are likely unpalatable to the other, there might be room for a compromise candidate that satisfies Bill Clinton’s rule about Republicans. Bring on the primaries!
Ξ November 18th, 2010 | → Comments Off | ∇ Politics |
I really like the writeup of this over at Ace of Spades:
Red on Red: Westboro Baptist Church Set to Picket…..Dearborn Islamic Center.
Thank you, Jesus. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. This is like Alien v. Predator, Leonard v. Hagler, Seinfeld v. Newman, Ralph Macchio v. The Cobra Kai Dojo and Olbermann v. Stewart all wrapped up in one delicious bite. If only I had cornered the market on popcorn before this fateful day!
Everyone knows the wackos at Westboro – they’re the ones that picket military funerals as a means to protest homosexuality. Dearborn, MI is one of the most heavily concentrated Muslim areas in the US, and hasn’t quite figured out the first amendment yet as it relates to proselytizing. Assuming no one actually gets killed, this ought to be interesting . . .
Ξ November 11th, 2010 | → Comments Off | ∇ Humor |
I recently came across the character of Lieutenant General Lewis Burwell “Chesty” Puller. Lt. Gen. Puller was in charge of a Marine division at the battle of Chosin Reservoir in the Korean War, in which 1st Marine Division was surrounded and cut off deep behind enemy lines and proceeded to fight their way back to UN lines. He became known for several of his witticisms regarding their dire situation:
All right, they’re on our left, they’re on our right, they’re in front of
us, they’re behind us…they can’t get away this time
Responding to a question about being surrounded by the Chinese:
They are a damn site better than the U.S. Army, at least we know that they
will be there in the morning.
He also had subtle criticism of the Air Force:
The mail service has been excellent out here, and in my opinion this is all that the
Air Force has accomplished during the war.
Remarking on their chances of breaking out from Chosin:
There are not enough Chinamen in the world to stop a fully armed Marine regiment
from going where ever they want to go.
Ξ November 10th, 2010 | → Comments Off | ∇ Politics |
I’ve discussed the health-care legislation passed with a number of people to great extent. Much discussion has been little more than conjecture and knee-jerk tropes. Now that some time has passed, however, certain aspects are starting to crystallize that seem to confirm my general suspicion of the sweeping regulation.
I’ve long maintained one of the crucial problems with our health care system is it’s employer-employee nature, where the company one works for provides the health insurance. No matter how benevolent your company is, it simply won’t have the same interest in your health as you will. In abstract, it makes no sense – why should your employer provide your health care?
During the height of the battle over health care in 2009, the Congressional Research Service came up with an excellent primer that laid out not only the history of the American health care system, but also the current state and possible courses of action to improve things. The crucial connection was made during WWII, when price wages were fixed, but companies were allowed to compete for workers using fringe benefits – namely pensions and health insurance. These elements eventually became tax-exempt, and health insurance was codified as tax-exempt in 1954. The result was that companies were able to offer employees something that was worth money but instead of being taxed as a regular wage would be, would actually become a tax deduction. The result was a mechanism for companies to offer employees $10,000, but instead of paying various taxes on it (and ending up costing $12,000), they end up paying less ($9,000, after tax deductions). What’s more, it was $10,000 in compensation that the employee didn’t need to pay tax on, so to them it was like getting $15,000. My numbers are very rough, but the gist is right.
It’s easy to see how the system quickly became entrenched.
Ever since Obamacare passed, however, we’ve heard of major employers talk of dropping their health care plans for their employees. Recently, when McDonald’s threatened to drop their workers from their plans unless they were given a waiver, Obama responded with granting 30 companies who had been complaining waivers for upcoming changes.
While I thought that Obama was blatantly disingenuous when he claimed that under his health care changes, everyone who liked their plans would be able to keep it (when passing legislation that sweeping, no plan was going to remain untouched), it does seem to have had the side effect of beginning to breakup the employer/employee health care relationship. Granted, he obviously didn’t anticipate it happening so quickly, and I believe he did it to try and bring about the public option, so his motives weren’t pure, but still, it’s something.
However, the way it’s happening is going to shift a large segment of the population to government-subsidized plans that will have much higher costs because of the requirements of Obamacare. As Governor Bresden notes in his Wall Street Journal editorial (Gov. Bresden is the Democrat governor of Tennessee, who gained some fame for reforming the state’s health care system) – many businesses will find it cheaper to simply drop health care coverage for their workers, pay the $2,000 fine, increase wages, and encourage their workers to get the federally subsidized plans. He estimates that it would save the state of Tennessee $146 million to send their employees to the subsidized insurance pools.
This was not envisioned by the CBO (Congressional Budget Office), nor fully appreciated by supporters of Obamacare, who echoed his claim that individuals would be able to keep their plans. If it’s more economical for companies to drop health care, they will do so.
Additionally, an important cost-containment method of Obamacare was spreading out the risk pools by requiring everyone to purchase health insurance. While there is no prohibition on state health care legislation doing this, opponents are correct in saying that it’s unprecedented at the federal level to require individuals purchase anything simply by living in the US. Whether or not one believes it’s a reasonable imposition or not is irrelevant, as the requirement very well may not survive a Supreme Court challenge. If it does not, then healthy individuals, upon whom the whole dependent on purchasing expensive plans to even out the risk, may opt out.
This may prove to be far more popular than supporters of Obamacare think, for the requirement to accept preexisting conditions means that simply not getting insurance until it’s needed eliminates the need to carry insurance to guard against costly, ongoing medical care.
This has been my ongoing problem with Obamacare – it attempts to micromanage a nation-wide solution to the problem. The term “sweeping reforms” has been a frequently used trope, but I think “complicated reforms” is more apt. Such things are the hubris of smart technocrats – that they can manage and legislate complex solutions to complex problems. Far better to deal with the one key problem that the federal government has created – the tax laws that created the employer/employee health care link, and then let the individual states experiment. They already have, and the net result won’t be an all-or-nothing solution. Some are doing better than others. But none of them have any control over federal tax laws. It’s a simple but profound change, and it’s one only the federal government can do. Let’s start there, and see what happens.
Ξ November 10th, 2010 | → Comments Off | ∇ Interesting |
So says the AP.
Quite the war going on in the comments section of that article. A guy named unsigned comes across as a bit of a belligerent jerk, but he makes an interesting point that previous instances of contamination were a result of flawed initial drilling (which is better regulated now), not sustained hydro-fracking (which occurs far below the water-table). I’m not knowledgeable enough to come down on one side or the other on this issue, but it’s a point worth investigating.
