All Together Now...

Afghanistan is a war of choice, not necessity.

Not to mention, a bad idea.

Continue reading...

They may be SOBs but now they're our SOBs - for now...

Marc Cooper expresses what are essentially my thoughts on the Obama administration's ability to bring Big Pharma on board for the health care reform battle. I agree, they're a bunch of bastards, but this is a helpful and probably a necessary piece of pragmatism.

I guess we'll have to save them for the (eventual) hangin', right?

He also says just about what I think (I think) re: John Edwards if I could bring myself to write it. I guess I'd add that I don't think this means he was "just an act." It means he's human. But he should have been at least strong enough to avoid this kind of temptation for his wife if for no other reason. Given her condition there's just no excuse here.

Continue reading...

This Seems Wrong

According to the search function at the top of this screen I have never used the word "divided" on this blog. That's almost embarrassing all by itself.

In any case, my rants in favor of divided government must have appeared elsewhere. Or not.

Seriously, would a fan of 1930s and 1960s reform really dislike unified government?

I just don't like unified Republican government. It tends to be rather stupid (what you would expect from people who... don't believe government can work!!!!!).

I'm not saying you're a bad person if you love yourself some DG, but I am more in favor of a party Democrats holding most of the keys to power at one time so that accountability is more straight forward. And of course, anyone who knows anything about the role of Southern Democrats in the 20th century - or "Blue Dogs" now - knows that even unified government is can be divided enough already.

Continue reading...

False Equivalencies

It has been suggested by a number of conservatives that recent town hall protests merely mirror liberal protests against the Bush administration and that essentially they are morally, politically, and intellectually equivalent.

It's really hard for me to take this seriously, but let me try.

The current health care protesters, and the tax tea-baggers can be compared with Iraq war protesters, and the more scattered calls for Bush's impeachment. We can also throw the 9/11 truthers in for good measure.

I'll stick to the health care protesters and the anti-Iraq war people for now - I've already written on the bat-shit-crazy 9/11 truthers. And really, much of the impeachment stuff followed from issues surrounding the Iraq war so I'll leave that to the side as well.

The first of two lines of comparison that I'll use here centers on whether or not claims are true.

Sarah Palin's "death panels" and claims about euthanasia are just crazy. Claims about a "government takeover" or a "power grab" are not as crazy, because if reform succeeds government will indeed have a much larger role in health care policy... but anecdotal evidence of those against reform - the older you are the more likely it seems you are against reform - suggest that many of those making this claim are on Medicare and are very happy about it. So, the suggestion that you don't want government involved in your health care is a bit nonsensical.

Also, the government is already deeply entrenched in health care policy and is the reason the United States is only ranked 37th in the world and not even lower. Countries that are commonly thrown up as bogeymen - like the UK - are ranked far higher than the US. I'll spare the details here unless anybody needs them.

With regard to the fear of rising health care costs... well... we spend $2.4 trillion in total costs now, probably around $4.3 by 2016 if we do nothing. Doing something to slow this trend is absolutely necessary if you give a damn about deficits (or private health care spending).

If protesters think what Congress and the President are proposing won't lead to savings it is their responsibility to propose suggestions that will, not fall back on insane conspiracies. Saying "slow down" or "do nothing" is not helpful.

How do these people stack up against Iraq war protesters relative to truth?

Well, first of all, the Iraq war protesters first protested a policy that was actually being debated from Septemberish 2002, to March 2003. So, they weren't crazy to fear what they feared. War - unlike health care death panels - was actually on the table.

Once the war started the death toll was truly horrendous from an Iraqi point of view, much worse than I think most expected from an American point of view, and I don't know, a few thousand times more expensive than advertised? On that latter point, unlike health care, there was no demonstrated need to front-load investment in war in order to save later. Indeed, the most relative question on this front is "Are we safer now as a result of the policy?" The entire intelligence establishment says "No."

We don't know what the outcome of health care reform will be, but we do know that most government reforms in this area have actually been quite good, and are indeed the best part of the US system.

Back to the war protesters, Cindy Sheehan can be compared to a number of anti-health care protesters out there right now. She lost her son. What have they lost? Any equivalencies to be found here are on the side of the reformers. That is to say, since the Institute of Medicine has found that more than 18,000 Americans die each year because they don't have insurance, there are medical Cindy Sheehans all over the country.

This brief exploration suggests that comparisons of health care protesters to anti-war protesters relative are unwarranted, at least on the basis of truth.

The second measure would focus on motive. That's always tough to know, but I think we can say some things.

First, the health care protesters are pretty obvious in their contempt for Obama and the Democrats before anything actually passes. That is, the Nazi references and the pissing and moaning about tyranny is already at full throttle even though absolutely nothing has been done yet, and every single charge against Obama and the Democrats that would warrant such a reaction are absolutely false.

So, I think we can say fairly clearly that these people think tyranny exists when a black Democratic President sits in the White House. The fact that many of the same people think that a proposed tax hike that leaves the top rate lower than it was during the Reagan era equals tyranny suggests an unreasonable motive to say the least.

Also, it has been demonstrated that Republican and corporate operatives are behind much of the misinformation that motivates average people to both hate on Obama and the health care proposals.

I'm not aware of any American corporations jumping into the anti-war fray like this.

Ok, what about the motives behind those against Bush in Iraq. Certainly there were sour grapes about the 2000 election, but they didn't show up the day after 9/11. If anything, the entire country was unified behind the President. I remember being very nervous about the Bush response, but not "anti-Bush" from the get go.

Indeed, protests followed from actual policy, not Bush's personality, and given that we were talking about war I think those motives were pretty strong.

So... you want pedantic... I give you pedantic. A brief and rushed comparison of two protests. Certainly not the last word, but to tell you the truth, I think it is fairly self-evident that the health care protesters are about as disconnected from reality as you can get.

Let's move away from the false equivalencies.

Continue reading...

What We're Up Against

From Krugman's blog:

Some wise words here, about the reality Obama needs to face — namely, that he faces truly crazy opponents, that it’s not just politics as usual.

And just as an illustration: a number of people have pointed this out, but here’s the latest in the "Obama’s health reform will kill people" news: Investor’s Business Daily — which poses as a reputable source of financial information — opines that

"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

That would be Stephen Hawking, British professor, who was born in the UK and has lived there for his whole life.

You know, I was taken to task over my claim in the last post that these town hall disruptions are the most important current form of corporate efforts to kill health care reform.

Well, the over-the-top and (sometimes) intentionally stupid efforts to scare the bejesus out of the simple-minded - attempts to get know-nothings to do the insurance industry's bidding in the clearest and most brazen example of What's the Matter with Kansas-ing yet - are proof enough that this is true, and that those on the take know it's true.

Continue reading...

"It's a Cookbook!"

Anticipating the next GOP claim about "Obamacare."

Seriously, though, this site seems like a decent real-time clearinghouse for rebutting nonsense about various proposals being considered by Congress. I wish my Republican friends who have expressed support for health care reform in the recent past would get into the game on the right side right now rather than use this moment to continue poking at the Obama administration (and unions).

I'm off to a town hall meeting.

Continue reading...

The Town Hall Meeting

As Krugman notes in his most recent column, Norman Rockwell had an idea about what town hall meetings looked like in a democracy. Notice how many people have their mouths open in this painting?



That's right. Just one. (And he's probably not saying anything like "Keep government out of my Medicare!")

The thing is, the people showing up and disrupting these meetings around the country over the last few days have been screaming, yelling, even breaking down weeping about how "their country has changed," which often seems clearly related to the fact that Obama is black, or in the coded parlance "is not one of us." The policy version is a reference to his "socialist" agenda.

Well, they're right that the country has changed. We're not as racist and culturally backwards as we used to be. And despite all the noise, we actually do want our governments to do quite a bit for us (let me know when Social Security and Medicare - former achievements of the socialist agenda - actually lose their supermajorities of support).

But that's not to say that there aren't some age old American traditions that deserve preservation.

Conducting a reasonable and thoughtful public debate is one of them. The Rockwell depiction may have never existed in perfect form, but it is a great irony that the mobs now destroying town meetings around the country are actually doing damage to one of those American ideals that is truly worthy of our aspirations.

Again these mobs represent nothing less than the public expression of failed citizenship. We should not be surprised where it leads.

Continue reading...

Shame

So much for democratic discourse and civic virtue. There is such a thing as a responsibility to be an informed and thoughtful citizen of the Republic, rather than a pawn of concentrated corporate wealth.

Continue reading...

E pleb neesta

I could watch this over and over...



But I could watch this many, many more times...



Another "thing of importance"...

Continue reading...

40 Years Ago Today

For the first time in my life I can actually say that I remember 40 years ago to the day.

I was three-years-old and some of my relatives came over to our house to watch men land on the moon. I remember knowing it was important, but not quite understanding what important was. I remember the flickering black-and-white TV and the image of Neil Armstrong stepping down a ladder.

Of course, knowing what I know about the human brain, these are all impressionistic images in my mind that have probably been warped, added to, and adjusted over the decades. But it's still pretty amazing.

Continue reading...

When Ignorance is Definitely Not Bliss

So for one reason or another I dragged my Obama 08 t-shirt out today for my 30-mile bike ride.

When I got back I got into a random conversation with a neighbor when another guy walked by who - in the best spirit of tinfoil hat wearing craziness - had taped a homemade bumper sticker on his car in support of Joe the Plumber during the campaign season. The fact that it was virtually incomprehensible, and that the rain caused his words of wisdom to smear almost immediately made the creation a fine and humorous representation of frontier gibberish. So anyway, I know where he stands. Approximately.

Anyway, this guy obviously caught a glimpse of my shirt and as he walked by I heard him mumble to is wife something about Obama "taking the economy down the drain."

Uh... the first Obama budget does not go into effect until October 1st of this year, and less than 10 percent of the February stimulus package has been spent.

Putting to one side all the different ways the last three decades of Reaganomics totally screwed up the economy, isn't it a bit early to be developing your "Obama killed the economy" talking points?

Not that facts have anything to do with the 20 percent or so of the population that is quite decidedly insane when it comes to politics.

Continue reading...

On the Importance of Judicial Diversity

Despite the shameless attempt to demonize Sonia Sotomayor for her comments about the value of diversity on the bench (which were actually pretty tame), the fact is that a diversity of judicial identity can be indispensable when it comes time to interpreting laws and practices that affect different groups in different ways.

Virginia v. Black (2003) is a case in point. In that case the Supreme Court overturned a portion of a statute that criminalized cross burning, prompting the following statement from the only dissenting member of the Court:

In every culture, certain things acquire meaning well beyond what outsiders can comprehend. That goes for both the sacred... and the profane. I believe that cross burning is the paradigmatic example of the latter.

This justice then outlined the history of cross burning and its meaning in American history. A history that mandated - at least according to the judge in question - that the act be seen as a form of terrorism, not as a form of expression worthy of the slightest First Amendment protection.

Who was that judge?

None other than one Clarence Thomas.

As Alexander Tsesis suggests over at Balkinization, it is difficult to believe that Thomas' point of view - and call for judicial activism in this case - had nothing to do with the fact that he is black and that he grew up in segregated Georgia.

Continue reading...

Maybe they should stick to Michael Jackson Coverage

Honestly, how do people like this get major network jobs? I know it's Fox, but still.

Continue reading...

Krugman vs. Taylor

It is interesting to hear John Taylor suggest that the economy bottomed out in December. I guess losing half-a-million jobs a month for the first half of 2009 doesn't count for much in his mind. And the right-wing talking points on the stimulus and health care are pretty hard to take. Krugman wins this one. Then again, that's hardly a big surprise.

Continue reading...

Back to School

Turns out most need a refresher course on macroeconomics. From Krugman.

In other news... Keith Richards still lives...

Continue reading...

Weaponized Keynesianism

Barney Frank rocks.

Continue reading...

Someone Should Do Something!

Continue reading...

Speaking of Consensus

My students tell me that one of the High Schools around here actually lets those in favor of Intelligent Design give lengthy presentations of their contrary views in science class. Given the magnitude of the scientific consensus on evolution, this open minded and reasonable sounding policy amounts to - at best - nothing more than wasted class time.

Given the complexity of the theory of evolution, the many vibrant and important debates within the confines of the scientific consensus, there is no excuse for diverging from the science curriculum on this topic.

My guess is that this dramatic discovery won't change attitudes at all.

Mountains of evidence never trumps abundant faith. The beat goes on.

Continue reading...

Dude.

Continue reading...

Setting the Record Straight... Again

Commenting on my last post, Professor Chaos suggests the following:

Yes, deficits and trillions borrowed should not in and of themselves scare us, but when that spending has a 12% stimulative effect, then you've moved far out of Keynesian economics and well into future bankruptcy -- unless obviated by massive inflation of course.

But don't worry, Obama will be long out of office at that point, and the chickens won't come home to roost for another generation. And I'm sure all this will be only to the benefit of the middle- and working-classes.

I'm not sure I fully understand the criticism here...

Is anyone who is serious about solutions to the current economic crisis actually concerned about a "stimulative effect" at this point? A stimulative effect is exactly what we're after. And following 539,000 more jobs lost in April, yes, this is what the middle and working class needs (the fact that this number was actually celebrated with optimism tells you how bad things are).

The timeline for the suggested "real" disaster of the future is confusing as well. So we can't do short-term stimulus or long-term investment without "future bankruptcy" or "massive inflation" that will happen when Obama is "long out of office"?

Seems to me there isn't much more going on here other than a lot of vaguely partisan ideations about future economic disaster.

How about we focus on the current one first?

At this point it seems reasonable to mention Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and supply-side economics... along with chickens that are presently roosting.

It certainly would be nice to dig ourselves out of the worst economy since the 1930s without the level of debt we're starting with. However, as mentioned many times before, it was precisely the policies favored by conservatives that drove the debt up in the first place. Irrational and radical tax cuts, spending on unnecessary wars, and decades of conservative-led refusal to do health care reform have put us where we are. If debt is truly your concern this has to be acknowledged (not to mention the fact that deregulation, as Galbraith points out, brought about the very predictable current economic crisis).

There's no mystery or debate about this. Rational persons this side of Dick Armey fully understand how we got where we are.

So now we must spend, and we'll be in a worse position relative to debt than we would have been had the supply-side strategy never been unleashed. But we must spend, nevertheless.

And, secondly, we must retool the economy so that we actually start making things the world wants to buy again. Alternative energy technology anybody?

Actually, that second part is what I think Chaos is truly upset about, even though he often conflates the evils of future spending with the supposed evils of stimulus spending on his blog. As I understand it, the crux of his criticism is that the large body of spending past any current economic crisis - the "non-Keynesian" stuff as he calls it - is what will get us into trouble later.

Ok. But we've done this before. And it actually worked to the benefit of the middle and working classes. And this question is not even close.

In fact, all this talk about debt-driven disaster is completely ahistorical.

I read a piece by Larry Kudlow last week where he expressed Chaosian outrage about the debt rising to something like 89 percent (89 percent!!!) of GDP over the next decade (because of the Obama budget of course, nothing about Reagan or Bush).

Ahem. For the hundredth time. The Debt/GDP ratio after WWII was around 120 percent. (Let's all commit the graph below to memory, shall we?)



However, since the economy was primed to expand as a result of new technologies - most of which were products of war time public investment - we were actually at the edge of what many economists describe as the Golden Age of Capitalism, not economic disaster. And let's all notice how the ratio went down for 30 years despite "decades of reckless liberal spending," which of course is more honestly characterized as investment.

So... the debt following an eight-year Obama administration "spending spree" should actually be very healthy for the economy, precisely because the spending isn't Reaganesk or Bushian (read: a total waste). Nobody is suggesting we can regain the preeminence of 1945, but we absolutely can reorganize this economy, and do so in a very similar manner as before - through tons of public-driven R&D investment and infrastructure development (and re-regulation).

Name me a successful modern capitalist society that hasn't taken this approach.

Name me a modern cutting-edge technology, or a dynamic sector of the economy, and I'll show you a product/industry developed through huge amounts of public R&D before it was turned over to the private sector.

In fact, the technical advances in consumer goods over the past 30 years of impoverished public policy were products of the R&D invested in the 30 golden years immediately following WWII. Again, we're talking about all that liberal spending that was going to bankrupt us if we didn't elect Reagan (who then immediately set us on a course for bankruptcy).

So the happy economic "chickens that came home to roost" in the 1980s and 1990s gave conservatives a free ride and masked the damage they were in fact inflicting on the economy.

Until now.

So the question for Chaos is, what are the other choices here? He doesn't say. He never says. I'm left to assume that the only proposed "solution" is more tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, combined with the radical, fanciful, and totally unrealistic longing for a tiny, pre-industrial federal budget and institutional structure.

Until I hear something a bit more specific about solutions the above criticism remains less than serious, and ignorant of both how we got where we are, and what made us great before.

Continue reading...