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 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 October 26th, 2010 | → Comments Off | ∇ Politics |
From an Obama election rally yesterday:
“We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends”
It’s really not out of context. Here’s the NYT article I pulled it from. I hope people have begun to realize that Obama isn’t just reverting to the usual identity politics of Democratic national politics, but really is this petty and short-sighted.
Consider this – the campaign speech he said this in was before a group of Latino voters. He was saying that he’s the true friend of that Latinos, and that it’s the Republicans that fight against immigration reform. But the Democrats didn’t take up immigration reform while they held near-super-majorities in Congress. Now Obama will have to deal with a Republican Congress. There are Republicans that would ally with Obama on this issue – the most powerful of which is the US Chamber of Commerce. However, in a petty and baseless spat, Obama singled them out for Presidential rebuke over completely legal campaign financing. If he were actually concerned about advancing immigration reform, why would he go out of his way to alienate his best friend on the other side of the isle on the issue? I assert it’s because he’s petty and short-sighted. Remember, this is a politician that has had a very short political career, always ran under very favorable conditions, and hasn’t needed to work with the opposition. I’m not sure he knows how to compromise, and he’s used to getting his way.
Bill Clinton had mastered the art of political comebacks after political defeats long before he reached the White House. November 2nd will be Obama’s first political setback ever, and the first time he’ll be operating in hostile political environment without having the muscle to bully his way through. I don’t anticipate him dealing with it well.
Ξ September 14th, 2010 | → Comments Off | ∇ Politics |
Watching Sean Hannity, who’s an O’Donnell supporter, misconstrue the arguments of the intelligentsia. Weekly Standard and company supported Rubio, supported Toomey. They aren’t for “establishment” candidates – and no one is particularly sad to see Lisa Murkowski go. They’re looking at the facts on the ground, and the facts are that O’Donnell can’t win. Toomey and Rubio are polished politicians. Rand Paul and Joe Miller are running in very red states. Everyone I know of supported Nikki Haley, especially given the mud thrown at her in that race. But O’Donnell is a bridge too far, and saying so isn’t elitism or a matter of “good-old boys”. The “establishment” these people are ranting about isn’t the GOP establishment – it’s the conservative establishment.
Ξ September 14th, 2010 | → Comments Off | ∇ Politics |
Today is primary day in Delaware. There is a nasty Senate race between Republicans Mike Castle and Christine O’Donnell. Castle had been the favorite by a mile, and is favored to win the general election by 11 points.
Then, a few weeks ago, Sarah Palin endorsed Christine O’Donnell, and all hell broke loose.
Palin’s endorsement was followed by Jim DeMint (one of the Senate’s most visible conservative members), and now O’Donnell is up by three in the primary.
Conservative intelligentsia is collectively going “are you guys nuts“? There is a standing rule amongst conservatives, handed out by William F. Buckley, that conservatives support the most conservative candidate *electable*. Castle is no conservative, and has a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of only 52%, but that’s far better than any Democrat would have from Delaware, a very blue state. O’Donnell was trounced when she ran for Senate in 2008, and no poll shows her within 10 points of the prospective Democratic nominee.
Mark Levin, the caustic talk-show host, initiated the fratricide by going (rhetorically speaking) postal on one of the Powerline Blog guys. I like Powerline (wiki entry) a lot – good, intelligent posts and they did yeoman’s work during the Rathergate scandal. They’re one of the more influential blogs that most people haven’t heard of. And they are certainly no David Frum (a notable conservative who tends to reject popular conservative memes).
Powerline’s position on O’Donnell is the same as The Weekly Standard, The National Review, Ace of Spades, Hotair, etc, etc – that she is kooky and not electable. For Levin, however, pointing this out amounts to treason, and launches into a series of ad hominem attacks and rather blatant mischaracterizations of one of the authors at Powerline – Paul Mirengoff. In fact, Levin was so unhinged he’s managed to alienate most of the conservative establishment.
Heaven save the right-wing from friends like Mark Levin.
Ξ September 6th, 2010 | → Comments Off | ∇ Intellectual, Politics |
Paul Krugman is an economics columnist at the New York Times, and received the Nobel Prize in economics for work he did in the late 80′s. Those two things give him a certain cachet in the realm of economics policy. However, ever since George W. Bush was elected in 2000, he has turned nearly totally partisan, using his clout to attack conservatives and defend liberalism, at the expense of intellectual integrity. His latest column is an example of how wrapped up in partisan rhetoric he is.
Krugman is a Keynesian. Keynesians believe that in economic downturns massive government spending must take place to turn the economy around. This was the prevalent school of thought in the FDR administration, and the economic policies of the 1930′s reflect that. However, Krugman goes too far with his attempts to interpret Keynesian success from the 1940′s:
From an economic point of view World War II was, above all, a burst of deficit-financed government spending, on a scale that would never have been approved otherwise. Over the course of the war the federal government borrowed an amount equal to roughly twice the value of G.D.P. in 1940 — the equivalent of roughly $30 trillion today.
Had anyone proposed spending even a fraction that much before the war, people would have said the same things they’re saying today. They would have warned about crushing debt and runaway inflation. They would also have said, rightly, that the Depression was in large part caused by excess debt — and then have declared that it was impossible to fix this problem by issuing even more debt.
But guess what? Deficit spending created an economic boom — and the boom laid the foundation for long-run prosperity. Overall debt in the economy — public plus private — actually fell as a percentage of G.D.P., thanks to economic growth and, yes, some inflation, which reduced the real value of outstanding debts. And after the war, thanks to the improved financial position of the private sector, the economy was able to thrive without continuing deficits.
I’m no economist, nor even an economic historian, but it strikes me fairly obvious that America’s economic prosperity following WWII might have had something to do with the fact that it was the only industrialized nation that hadn’t been devastated by war. Germany, Russia, Britain, France – all had their industrial centers ravaged, their male populations decimated. BMW and Mitsubishi weren’t exactly in a position to challenge GM, Ford or Chrysler in 1946. Britain didn’t end food rationing until 1954 – nine years after the war ended.
I’m sure America’s economy would see an uptick if the rest of the world’s industrial infrastructure crumbled overnight. I don’t think we’d even need to go into public debt if it did happen to trigger the boom. I’m just not sure how Krugman is proposing for it happen.
« Previous Page —
Next Page »
