By Dave
A Hard Day's Night of the Living Dead
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Rasmussen = Republican Shill
By Dave
Why does every Republican blog use Rasmussen polling data to support their world view. As it turns out, it's because they present ridiculous, insanely biased data. Andrew Sullivan compares the data.
This cocooning from reality will only further serve the Republican self-destruction of 2010.
Why does every Republican blog use Rasmussen polling data to support their world view. As it turns out, it's because they present ridiculous, insanely biased data. Andrew Sullivan compares the data.
This cocooning from reality will only further serve the Republican self-destruction of 2010.
How Religious is Your State?
By Dave
The Pew Forum ranks states by their religiosity. Colorado comes in pretty close to the bottom. The East Coast states I expected but is anyone else surprised by how godless Alaska is? Don't tell Palin!
H/T Pharyngula
The Pew Forum ranks states by their religiosity. Colorado comes in pretty close to the bottom. The East Coast states I expected but is anyone else surprised by how godless Alaska is? Don't tell Palin!
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
To Excise Tax or Not to Excise Tax
By Dave
Public policy is hard. There are very few opportunities left to make Pareto Improvements. I don’t believe in utopia. Everything involves a trade-off. To me, it's no surprise that all public policy creates winners and losers. The job of those crafting policy and those who are watching it be crafted is to evaluate the policy based on a range of criteria and then ask if it does more good than bad. If so, then it can be called, "good policy" and should probably be implemented.
That's how I approach Bob Herbert's piece in the NYT. I think the excise tax and other cost-controls will make the country better off as a whole, but some people will be made worse off than they are today. Herbert, on the other hand, calls the excise tax a “Less than Honest Policy”. Here are a few snippets:
So I'm sympathetic, but I think he's wrong in his analysis. Here’s what I know about the excise tax and here’s why I support it.
From the CBO report:
Herbert's right that the excise tax is a revenue generator and over the long term will help reduce the deficit. But it's also a cost control designed to reduce the costs of health insurance.
In fact, Christina Romer, the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, called it "probably the number one item that health economists across the ideological spectrum believe is likely to stem the explosion of health-care costs."
and MIT Economist Jonathan Gruber says:
The national average cost for a family is $13,000. The excise tax has been dubbed a “Cadillac tax” because it will tax high-deductible plans, ones that cost more than $23,000 a family. The intention of the tax is no dirty secret. In fact, it should be no secret at all. It's job is to create a powerful incentive for insurers to be very wary when they increase their premiums. If their plan gets too expensive, the price will snow ball and get very expensive, too expensive for most people. This will drive consumers into the lower priced plans of their competitors, which should be more available through the new insurance exchanges.
In Herbert’s mind, this is the same as ratcheting down the quality of a plan. But if there is anything we’ve learned in the last few months it’s that price and quality are not always correlated in health care. In fact, we spend huge amounts of money and get lower outcomes. Just look at this graph from National Geographic if you needed any more evidence.
Here's Ezra Klein:
The other part of health care reform means getting away from an employer-based model of health care. In the long-run this will be better for both workers and employers. But in the short run, there will be people who will lose. As Herbert notes, the Unions are not thrilled about this. In fact, they are openly opposing it. But of course they are! Unions currently receive a $250 Billion a year subsidy from the US taxpayer on health insurance plans. So of course they oppose it. Who wouldn’t grumble if a chunk was taken out of their giant subsidy?
But this subsidy is a problem. It encourages waste because employers can offer bigger packages during labor negotiations and they’re worth more because unlike wages they’re tax-free. So companies keep dumping more money into exorbitant health insurance packages and workers think they’re better off, but for the money being dumped in, it’s more likely their getting a raw deal.
However, the excise tax probably makes workers better off in the long run. Gruber again:
So the excise tax will reduce the national deficit, bend the cost curve in health care, encourage insurers to provide more affordable plans, wean the country off employer-based health care, and maybe lead to better wages over the long-run for workers. I'd say this is good policy, not great policy. But on the whole, if we hope to control costs, these are the types of things we have to do.
Public policy is hard. There are very few opportunities left to make Pareto Improvements. I don’t believe in utopia. Everything involves a trade-off. To me, it's no surprise that all public policy creates winners and losers. The job of those crafting policy and those who are watching it be crafted is to evaluate the policy based on a range of criteria and then ask if it does more good than bad. If so, then it can be called, "good policy" and should probably be implemented.
That's how I approach Bob Herbert's piece in the NYT. I think the excise tax and other cost-controls will make the country better off as a whole, but some people will be made worse off than they are today. Herbert, on the other hand, calls the excise tax a “Less than Honest Policy”. Here are a few snippets:
Proponents say the tax will raise nearly $150 billion over 10 years, but there’s a catch. It’s not expected to raise this money directly. The dirty little secret behind this onerous tax is that no one expects very many people to pay it. The idea is that rather than fork over 40 percent in taxes on the amount by which policies exceed the threshold, employers (and individuals who purchase health insurance on their own) will have little choice but to ratchet down the quality of their health plans.
...
Proponents say this is a terrific way to hold down health care costs. If policyholders have to pay more out of their own pockets, they will be more careful — that is to say, more reluctant — to access health services. On the other hand, people with very serious illnesses will be saddled with much higher out-of-pocket costs. And a reluctance to seek treatment for something that might seem relatively minor at first could well have terrible (and terribly expensive) consequences in the long run.
...
Those who believe this is a good idea should at least have the courage to be straight about it with the American people.
So I'm sympathetic, but I think he's wrong in his analysis. Here’s what I know about the excise tax and here’s why I support it.
From the CBO report:
Beginning in 2013, insurance policies with relatively high total premiums would be subject to a 40 percent excise tax on the amount by which the premiums exceeded a specified threshold. That threshold would be set initially at $8,500 for single policies and $23,000 for family policies (with certain exceptions); after 2013, those amounts would be indexed to overall inflation plus 1 percentage point.
Herbert's right that the excise tax is a revenue generator and over the long term will help reduce the deficit. But it's also a cost control designed to reduce the costs of health insurance.
In fact, Christina Romer, the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, called it "probably the number one item that health economists across the ideological spectrum believe is likely to stem the explosion of health-care costs."
and MIT Economist Jonathan Gruber says:
It would reduce the incentives for employers to provide excessively generous insurance, leading to more cost-conscious use of health care and, ultimately, lower spending. In other words, it "bends the curve." It would also be progressive, in that it would take from those with the most generous insurance to finance the expansion of coverage to those without insurance.
The national average cost for a family is $13,000. The excise tax has been dubbed a “Cadillac tax” because it will tax high-deductible plans, ones that cost more than $23,000 a family. The intention of the tax is no dirty secret. In fact, it should be no secret at all. It's job is to create a powerful incentive for insurers to be very wary when they increase their premiums. If their plan gets too expensive, the price will snow ball and get very expensive, too expensive for most people. This will drive consumers into the lower priced plans of their competitors, which should be more available through the new insurance exchanges.
In Herbert’s mind, this is the same as ratcheting down the quality of a plan. But if there is anything we’ve learned in the last few months it’s that price and quality are not always correlated in health care. In fact, we spend huge amounts of money and get lower outcomes. Just look at this graph from National Geographic if you needed any more evidence.
Here's Ezra Klein:
First, more insurance is not always better. Health-care outcomes in Canada and England -- both of which have strong pressures against overuse -- are not worse than those in America. More to the point, health outcomes in Kaiser Permanente, which is a managed-care organization, are not worse than those in Aetna's more expensive PPO plans.
...
But loose rules also encourage a lot of waste -- estimates run at about 15 to 30 cents of every dollar we spend. That waste won't be painless to cut out of the system, but it'll be less painful -- and less harmful -- than anything else.So we have to get rid of the waste and the excess. No doubt the excise tax is a crude implement to accomplish this and there are ways that we could improve it, such as allowing the threshold to change based on demographics. But by penalizing insurers who charge too much we can stop the excessive creep of health care costs.
The other part of health care reform means getting away from an employer-based model of health care. In the long-run this will be better for both workers and employers. But in the short run, there will be people who will lose. As Herbert notes, the Unions are not thrilled about this. In fact, they are openly opposing it. But of course they are! Unions currently receive a $250 Billion a year subsidy from the US taxpayer on health insurance plans. So of course they oppose it. Who wouldn’t grumble if a chunk was taken out of their giant subsidy?
But this subsidy is a problem. It encourages waste because employers can offer bigger packages during labor negotiations and they’re worth more because unlike wages they’re tax-free. So companies keep dumping more money into exorbitant health insurance packages and workers think they’re better off, but for the money being dumped in, it’s more likely their getting a raw deal.
However, the excise tax probably makes workers better off in the long run. Gruber again:
Moreover, most experts and Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation assume that most companies would not end up paying this tax but would instead reduce their insurance spending to below the threshold for the tax. And when firms reduce their insurance generosity, they make it up in higher pay for their workers. We saw this in the late 1990s, when the rise of managed care temporarily lowered insurance costs, and wages rose in real terms for the first time in many years. But as soon as managed care was weakened and health costs rose again, we once again saw flat or declining real wages in the United States.
By my calculations the excise tax in the Senate legislation will raise U.S. worker wages by a total of $223 billion over the next decade, which would mean about $660 in extra annual earnings per employer-insured household by 2019. Moreover, the vast majority of those wage increases accrue to middle- and lower-income households; 90 percent would go to families with incomes below $200,000.
So the excise tax will reduce the national deficit, bend the cost curve in health care, encourage insurers to provide more affordable plans, wean the country off employer-based health care, and maybe lead to better wages over the long-run for workers. I'd say this is good policy, not great policy. But on the whole, if we hope to control costs, these are the types of things we have to do.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
New Look
By Dave
Well Op-Edantic has been going strong for two weeks now. I've tried to be consistent and post everyday. I think it has worked out pretty well. I've been pretty dissatisfied with the look of the blog though, so for the next few days I'm going to play around a little bit. Any feedback you have would be really helpful. Which designs do you like or dislike, or any suggestions would also be really helpful. Thanks for reading.
Well Op-Edantic has been going strong for two weeks now. I've tried to be consistent and post everyday. I think it has worked out pretty well. I've been pretty dissatisfied with the look of the blog though, so for the next few days I'm going to play around a little bit. Any feedback you have would be really helpful. Which designs do you like or dislike, or any suggestions would also be really helpful. Thanks for reading.
Just for Fun
By Dave
I'm sorry but this song has stuck in my head, off and on, for the last couple of weeks. I don't know what is wrong with me. (But it's one of their best...better than Maneater anyway...)
I'm sorry but this song has stuck in my head, off and on, for the last couple of weeks. I don't know what is wrong with me. (But it's one of their best...better than Maneater anyway...)
Republicans Committed to Losing in 2010
By Dave
Tea party activists and GOP notables such as Newt Gingrich are pushing 2010 Republican candidates to run on a platform of repealing health care reform. This is a great strategy...for Democrats! Really, it sounds great! Seriously, please do this. LMAO!
Run on a platform that will actively deny 30 million people health care coverage, that will allow insurers to deny people based on pre-existing conditions, that will add billions to the federal deficit, that will make health care less affordable, and cause costs to spiral out of control. Please do this. I dare you, I double dog dare you.
Granted, the more savvy of the Republican contenders will probably pick and choose pieces out of the health care bill, like individual mandates, to attack. But who knows if this will be enough sate the teabaggers and party activists, I guess we'll see.
I think Republicans are looking at a bad year in 2010. They've decided to be 100% a Party of No. They've bet against the economy, against health care reform, against climate change, against the war, and against national security. They've doubled down on failure. But they've misread the tea leaves. Sure, people are mad right now, in part because the economy is so bad, and in part because the Obama administration has tackled big, controversial issues that have gotten people riled up and, frankly, scared and confused. But people aren't mad because they know what health care reform does, they're mad because they have no idea what it does. My guess is not many people off the street could explain health care reform. So people are rightfully anxious.
But there's a long time between now and Nov. 2010. There's a lot of pieces in play and it's too early to know where they'll land. The stimulus bill will begin to ramp up, the economy may begin to improve if only marginally, some health care reforms will kick in immediately, Guantanamo may finally be shut down, some troops may come out of Iraq, Afghanistan could be marginally better. There's enough to be anxious about but it's to uncertain to be excited about.
The Republican platform is just so tragically short-sighted. When the world doesn't crash around our ankles, when things do get better, then what? They have no answer. They're too blinded by rage and frustration, they can't ask the obvious questions about their own platform. But if Republican's want their platform to be the gallows of their own demise, so be it.
Tea party activists and GOP notables such as Newt Gingrich are pushing 2010 Republican candidates to run on a platform of repealing health care reform. This is a great strategy...for Democrats! Really, it sounds great! Seriously, please do this. LMAO!
Run on a platform that will actively deny 30 million people health care coverage, that will allow insurers to deny people based on pre-existing conditions, that will add billions to the federal deficit, that will make health care less affordable, and cause costs to spiral out of control. Please do this. I dare you, I double dog dare you.
Granted, the more savvy of the Republican contenders will probably pick and choose pieces out of the health care bill, like individual mandates, to attack. But who knows if this will be enough sate the teabaggers and party activists, I guess we'll see.
I think Republicans are looking at a bad year in 2010. They've decided to be 100% a Party of No. They've bet against the economy, against health care reform, against climate change, against the war, and against national security. They've doubled down on failure. But they've misread the tea leaves. Sure, people are mad right now, in part because the economy is so bad, and in part because the Obama administration has tackled big, controversial issues that have gotten people riled up and, frankly, scared and confused. But people aren't mad because they know what health care reform does, they're mad because they have no idea what it does. My guess is not many people off the street could explain health care reform. So people are rightfully anxious.
But there's a long time between now and Nov. 2010. There's a lot of pieces in play and it's too early to know where they'll land. The stimulus bill will begin to ramp up, the economy may begin to improve if only marginally, some health care reforms will kick in immediately, Guantanamo may finally be shut down, some troops may come out of Iraq, Afghanistan could be marginally better. There's enough to be anxious about but it's to uncertain to be excited about.
The Republican platform is just so tragically short-sighted. When the world doesn't crash around our ankles, when things do get better, then what? They have no answer. They're too blinded by rage and frustration, they can't ask the obvious questions about their own platform. But if Republican's want their platform to be the gallows of their own demise, so be it.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Airline Travel to Get More Awful
By Dave
Awesome. In response to the Nigerian terrorist who tried to blow-up a flight over Detroit, everyone wants to make flying a more miserable experience. The loonies on the right, of course, think now would be a perfect time to enact racial-profiling. But this is their standard refrain, so no surprise there. But the TSA thinks we should all be punished. Airlines are scrambling to enact new regulations to make flying "safer." Here's the NYT:
Come on, how is this making travel any safer? This is just knee-jerk reactionary thinking. There has to be a better way to make flying safe and convenient. We have the technology , right? Where's that stimulus money? Why aren't we making hijack-proof planes and creating better liquid-explosive detectors? We obviously haven't solved the problem by making everyone throw away their shampoo and nail clippers, so now let's try actual improvements.
Awesome. In response to the Nigerian terrorist who tried to blow-up a flight over Detroit, everyone wants to make flying a more miserable experience. The loonies on the right, of course, think now would be a perfect time to enact racial-profiling. But this is their standard refrain, so no surprise there. But the TSA thinks we should all be punished. Airlines are scrambling to enact new regulations to make flying "safer." Here's the NYT:
But several airlines released detailed information about the restrictions, saying that passengers on international flights coming to the United States will apparently have to remain in their seats for the last hour of a flight without any personal items on their laps. It was not clear how often the rule would affect domestic flights.Wow! Great! Put your book away, shut off that ipod, and stare straight ahead. NO TALKING! Totally worth the price of a ticket! Not only do you get to sit in a tiny, uncomfortable chair, you get to be actively bored. Yay!
Come on, how is this making travel any safer? This is just knee-jerk reactionary thinking. There has to be a better way to make flying safe and convenient. We have the technology , right? Where's that stimulus money? Why aren't we making hijack-proof planes and creating better liquid-explosive detectors? We obviously haven't solved the problem by making everyone throw away their shampoo and nail clippers, so now let's try actual improvements.
Radio Sucks
By Dave
The New York Times gives us the most played songs of the decade. If you needed any other proof that the radio sucks, please look no further:
Seriously, Train was the most played adult contemporary song!? Papa Roach!? Flo Rida!? Staind!? Oy...
The New York Times gives us the most played songs of the decade. If you needed any other proof that the radio sucks, please look no further:
Country: “Something Like That” (1999) by Tim McGraw, 487,343 spins
Top 40/contemporary hit radio: “Yeah!” (2004) by Usher, featuring Ludacris and Lil Jon, 416,267 spins
Hot AC: “Drops of Jupiter (Tell Me)” (2001) by Train, 338,749 spins
Alternative: “Last Resort” (2000) by Papa Roach, 221,767 spins
Rhythmic: “Low” (2007) by Flo Rida, 206,864 spins
Album rock: “It’s Been Awhile” (2001) by Staind, 189,195 spins
Urban: “Drop It Like It’s Hot” (2004) by Snoop Dogg, featuring Pharrell, 169,511 spins
Seriously, Train was the most played adult contemporary song!? Papa Roach!? Flo Rida!? Staind!? Oy...
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Colorado "One of the Most Compelling Gubernatorial Races"
By Dave
According to The Hill, Colorado has a 'toss-up' gubernatorial race:
According to The Hill, Colorado has a 'toss-up' gubernatorial race:
Colorado’s transition from a nine-point Bush state in 2000 to a nine-point Obama state in 2008 has been well-documented. But the honeymoon is over, and Gov. Bill Ritter’s (D) 57-40 triumph over Rep. Bob Beauprez (R-Colo.) in 2006 is now ancient history. Like so many governors, Ritter has seen his numbers ebb this year. Former Rep. Scott McInnis (R-Colo.), meanwhile, got a huge break when primary opponent Josh Penry dropped out of the race. This state will be a key test of whether Republicans can win back enough Latino voters to start winning again.We'll see. My sense is that Ritter has done a pretty convincing job of governing as a moderate. He's done a lot for moving the state toward a green energy economy and has governed pretty credibly during a time of real financial hardship. Colorado has a pretty good economy when compared to others across the country, and has pretty low unemployment, all things which may bode well for Ritter in the future. His popularity is fairly low, but this may be because it is just a hard time for any incumbent to run. Also, after years of nasty immigration rhetoric, it's hard for me to imagine that the Republican party can do much to win back the Latino vote in any credible sort of way by 2010.
Health Care Subsidies
By Dave
Paul Krugman gives us this graph from the Kaiser Health Reform Subsidy Calculator
It's pretty clear reform would make health care much more accessible to those at the lower end of the economic spectrum. In fact, for those at or below the poverty line, reform will practically pay for your health insurance. From a progressive standpoint, not bad at all. Now, of course tiered subsidy rates can cause perverse incentives, depending on what's lost between the move from say, 100% and 150% of the PL. But those potential problems aside, I'd say this is pretty cool.
Paul Krugman gives us this graph from the Kaiser Health Reform Subsidy Calculator
It's pretty clear reform would make health care much more accessible to those at the lower end of the economic spectrum. In fact, for those at or below the poverty line, reform will practically pay for your health insurance. From a progressive standpoint, not bad at all. Now, of course tiered subsidy rates can cause perverse incentives, depending on what's lost between the move from say, 100% and 150% of the PL. But those potential problems aside, I'd say this is pretty cool.
Unrest in Iran
By Dave
People have been taking to the streets en masse in Tehran today. They are burning police cars and stations and calling for freedom in Tehran. Today is the Day of Ashura in the Muslim World. It is a day of mourning for the martyrdom of Husayn ibn Ali, the grandson of the prophet Muhammad. While it is a religious day of mourning, it is also a day that has taken on greater political significance over time.
The people of Tehran have turned the day of Ashura into a day of protest against the Khamenei regime. The regime has struck back and brutally attacked protesters. Hundreds have been arrested, many have been injured and about 8-10 people have been killed in clashes with security forces, including opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi's nephew. The Obama administration has condemned the 'unjust suppression' of protesters.
It's easy enough to recognize these protests are not insignificant, but it's hard to tell where this is all leading to. This is an unusual place for the Khamenei regime to be. They are not used to such sustained and widespread opposition. If nothing else, today's actions show incredible desperation on the part of the regime. But will these protests culminate in a '79 style regime change in Iran? Or is that too western-centric a hope?
Either way, the footage coming out of Tehran has been heartbreaking and inspiring. The courage of the protesters, in the face of such brutality and violence, is nothing short of awe-inspiring. My heart goes out to all of the families of someone slain today.
Also I've found Andrew Sullivan at the Daily Dish is one of the best places to follow this. If you're not checking in regularly, you should be.
People have been taking to the streets en masse in Tehran today. They are burning police cars and stations and calling for freedom in Tehran. Today is the Day of Ashura in the Muslim World. It is a day of mourning for the martyrdom of Husayn ibn Ali, the grandson of the prophet Muhammad. While it is a religious day of mourning, it is also a day that has taken on greater political significance over time.
The people of Tehran have turned the day of Ashura into a day of protest against the Khamenei regime. The regime has struck back and brutally attacked protesters. Hundreds have been arrested, many have been injured and about 8-10 people have been killed in clashes with security forces, including opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi's nephew. The Obama administration has condemned the 'unjust suppression' of protesters.
It's easy enough to recognize these protests are not insignificant, but it's hard to tell where this is all leading to. This is an unusual place for the Khamenei regime to be. They are not used to such sustained and widespread opposition. If nothing else, today's actions show incredible desperation on the part of the regime. But will these protests culminate in a '79 style regime change in Iran? Or is that too western-centric a hope?
Either way, the footage coming out of Tehran has been heartbreaking and inspiring. The courage of the protesters, in the face of such brutality and violence, is nothing short of awe-inspiring. My heart goes out to all of the families of someone slain today.
Also I've found Andrew Sullivan at the Daily Dish is one of the best places to follow this. If you're not checking in regularly, you should be.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Riddle Me This
By Dave
Riddle me this: If the health bill is nothing but big giveaways to the insurance companies, why are they still trying to kill the bill?
Riddle me this: If the health bill is nothing but big giveaways to the insurance companies, why are they still trying to kill the bill?
Big insurers are still hoping to influence some language in the legislation before Congress sends it to the president. But one thing is clear: The initiative is poised to change their industry more than any other sector of the U.S. health-care system, with huge potential to disrupt profitability.
Strange Bedfellows
By Dave
Strange bedfellows indeed. Jane Hamsher at FireDogLake recently joined forces with Grover Norquist to call on Eric Holder to investigate Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Let me repeat: super-"progressive" blogger Jane Hamsher has joined forces with Grover Motherf%$king Norquist to attack Obama’s Chief of Staff.
Now I already don't care much for Hamsher because for her asinine, misleading, and frankly idiotic 10 Reasons to kill the Health Care Bill. Every reason seems designed to completely misrepresent what this bill does. It's almost as bad as talking to a teabagger! Anyways, Ezra Klein offers a solid rebuttal.
So what's this petition about? According to ABC, accounting fraud took place at Fannie Mae from about 1998-2002. Here's the SEC complaint. Rahm Emanuel served on the board of Fannie Mae from 2000-2001. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) report was very critical of the Board of Directors but also said, "the terms of the presidentially appointed Directors are far too short, averaging just over 14 months, for them to play a meaningful role on the Board." Although a number of people were charged, Emanuel was not. So should Rahm be investigated again? I don't know. Hamsher thinks there is still something there, so whatever, I've really got no beef with this.
What I can't get over is that she's teamed up with Grover Norquist. You remember him. The same guy who called bipartisanship a form of date rape. The same guy who was College Republic pals with Karl Rove. The same guy who said Democrats will only be acceptable once they “are comfortable in their minority status. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they’ve been fixed, then they are happy and sedate.” The same guy who wants to drown the government in a bathtub. The guy who said Obama was "John Kerry, with a tan." Perhaps you remember this little gem: ""Our goal is to inflict pain. It is not good enough to win; it has to be a painful and devastating defeat. We're sending a message here. It is like when the king would take his opponent's head and spike it on a pole for everyone to see."
This is not 'politics make strange bedfellows', this is just stupid. And suicidal. Do you remember the Clinton years? Guys like Norquist wage politics as war. They take no prisoners. They will take any and every opportunity to destroy the progressive agenda and return us to the Bush years. You may find confluence on an issue, but they will leverage that means to a different ends. Don't give them credibility, don't give them a platform, don't give them an audience.
I'm sorry but Hamsher is out of her mind. This is like teaming up with Dick Cheney because you don't like the President's Afghan policy or cowriting Facebook pages with Sarah Palin because you don't like the President's Energy Policy. Maybe she'll cowrite an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal with Karl Rove next.
(Picture from Spiegel Online: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,grossbild-1488841-618181,00.html)
Strange bedfellows indeed. Jane Hamsher at FireDogLake recently joined forces with Grover Norquist to call on Eric Holder to investigate Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Let me repeat: super-"progressive" blogger Jane Hamsher has joined forces with Grover Motherf%$king Norquist to attack Obama’s Chief of Staff. Now I already don't care much for Hamsher because for her asinine, misleading, and frankly idiotic 10 Reasons to kill the Health Care Bill. Every reason seems designed to completely misrepresent what this bill does. It's almost as bad as talking to a teabagger! Anyways, Ezra Klein offers a solid rebuttal.
So what's this petition about? According to ABC, accounting fraud took place at Fannie Mae from about 1998-2002. Here's the SEC complaint. Rahm Emanuel served on the board of Fannie Mae from 2000-2001. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) report was very critical of the Board of Directors but also said, "the terms of the presidentially appointed Directors are far too short, averaging just over 14 months, for them to play a meaningful role on the Board." Although a number of people were charged, Emanuel was not. So should Rahm be investigated again? I don't know. Hamsher thinks there is still something there, so whatever, I've really got no beef with this.
What I can't get over is that she's teamed up with Grover Norquist. You remember him. The same guy who called bipartisanship a form of date rape. The same guy who was College Republic pals with Karl Rove. The same guy who said Democrats will only be acceptable once they “are comfortable in their minority status. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they’ve been fixed, then they are happy and sedate.” The same guy who wants to drown the government in a bathtub. The guy who said Obama was "John Kerry, with a tan." Perhaps you remember this little gem: ""Our goal is to inflict pain. It is not good enough to win; it has to be a painful and devastating defeat. We're sending a message here. It is like when the king would take his opponent's head and spike it on a pole for everyone to see."
This is not 'politics make strange bedfellows', this is just stupid. And suicidal. Do you remember the Clinton years? Guys like Norquist wage politics as war. They take no prisoners. They will take any and every opportunity to destroy the progressive agenda and return us to the Bush years. You may find confluence on an issue, but they will leverage that means to a different ends. Don't give them credibility, don't give them a platform, don't give them an audience.
I'm sorry but Hamsher is out of her mind. This is like teaming up with Dick Cheney because you don't like the President's Afghan policy or cowriting Facebook pages with Sarah Palin because you don't like the President's Energy Policy. Maybe she'll cowrite an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal with Karl Rove next.
(Picture from Spiegel Online: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,grossbild-1488841-618181,00.html)
Friday, December 25, 2009
and now for something completely different...
by nate
everyone else has xmas music goin' up in here, but i worked in a mall over the holidays once. never again. so here y'go, this is biffy clyro, out of scotland, which i hear is across an ocean from me. and, like, kinda diagonal.
everyone else has xmas music goin' up in here, but i worked in a mall over the holidays once. never again. so here y'go, this is biffy clyro, out of scotland, which i hear is across an ocean from me. and, like, kinda diagonal.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
On the Precipice of Health Care Reform
By Dave
In a few hours, I am expecting to wake up to a nice cup of coffee and the news that the Senate finally, actually, for real passed a health care bill.
Of course, the next step will be a conference committee since it sounds like the House is not interested in ping-ponging it. Which is fine because it will probably create a better bill. However, look for the media to drum up ratings and suspense to suggest this process is fraught with peril and that the bill is still in constant danger of being destroyed. It's all true.
But in relative terms, the hard part is over. Everything else is window-dressing and, I don't care who you are, you don't burn down a house because you don't like the color of the window shades. You just keep nagging your spouse with snarky asides and one-liners until they get changed. Such is the nature of American politics.
So I say, it's time to prematurely celebrate! It could come back to bite me, but what the hell? I'm optimistic.
Oh andall you naysayers Mitch McConnell: suck it! Woo! Merry Christmas, Baby!
In a few hours, I am expecting to wake up to a nice cup of coffee and the news that the Senate finally, actually, for real passed a health care bill.
Of course, the next step will be a conference committee since it sounds like the House is not interested in ping-ponging it. Which is fine because it will probably create a better bill. However, look for the media to drum up ratings and suspense to suggest this process is fraught with peril and that the bill is still in constant danger of being destroyed. It's all true.
But in relative terms, the hard part is over. Everything else is window-dressing and, I don't care who you are, you don't burn down a house because you don't like the color of the window shades. You just keep nagging your spouse with snarky asides and one-liners until they get changed. Such is the nature of American politics.
So I say, it's time to prematurely celebrate! It could come back to bite me, but what the hell? I'm optimistic.
Oh and
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Seeing the Light
By Dave
Hallelujah! Finally coming around, Howard Dean tells Rachel Maddow that he no longer wants to kill the bill:
Anyways, in the end, Ican't be too mad I'm only mildly upset, no harm was done. In fact, it might have given more leverage against conservative Dems, like Ben Nelson. Dr. Dean welcome back, I'm glad you've seen the light!
Hallelujah! Finally coming around, Howard Dean tells Rachel Maddow that he no longer wants to kill the bill:
“Honestly, to see the Republicans up there carrying on the way they are, I basically concluded that maybe we should pass this thing … If the Republicans hate it, there must be some good to it.”Dean says he changed his mind because the bill has improved in the last week. Dean's always been a hothead, so this is hard for me to read. A public option wasn't added, which is what he said he wanted, so what changed this week? Well, Reid's Manager Amendment is the only thing I can think of. And while this made some important changes, it seems more like fine-tuning to me. So was there a method to Dean's madness or did he simply come off too strong against the bill without thinking? My guess is that it's the latter. Does anyone have a sense on this?
Anyways, in the end, I
Out of Their Everlovin' Minds...
By Dave
I'm sorry but this is too much! As if praying for a fellow Senator to die wasn't bad enough, now we have to worry about backfires and ricochets too!?
This can't be real, right? Somebody was pulling his leg?
I'm sorry but this is too much! As if praying for a fellow Senator to die wasn't bad enough, now we have to worry about backfires and ricochets too!?
This can't be real, right? Somebody was pulling his leg?
By
Chuck Klosterman sets down some thoughts about the Beatles anthology. Hilarity ensues.
Read the Onion feature here.
Chuck Klosterman sets down some thoughts about the Beatles anthology. Hilarity ensues.
Read the Onion feature here.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Math in Preschool
By Wade
Interesting article on early learning in 4-year-olds. I've always thought they were craftier than we gave them credit for...
Here's some of the relevant bits:
Interesting article on early learning in 4-year-olds. I've always thought they were craftier than we gave them credit for...
Here's some of the relevant bits:
Many 4-year-olds cannot count up to their own age when they arrive at preschool...
...three months into the school year, counting up to seven and higher, even doing some elementary addition and subtraction. At recess, one boy, Joshua, used a pointer to illustrate a math concept known as cardinality, by completing place settings on a whiteboard...
...By preschool, the brain can handle larger numbers and is struggling to link three crucial concepts: physical quantities (seven marbles, seven inches) with abstract digit symbols (“7”), with the corresponding number words (“seven”).
No Surprise Here
Saw this unusual article at the WSJ:
A large part of my interests in the field of psychology are predicated on the benefits of encouraging imagination and self-direction for children. Anyone who's spent any time really interacting with children and meeting them on their level should understand this.
Originally, when I decided to go into psych, my idea was that I would use role-playing games (a long-time passion of mine) as a tool to help children deal with their challenges at a distance, projecting any problems onto an avatar before having to tackle it themselves. These aren't the first studies to have shown benefits from imaginative activities.
...increasingly, child-development experts are recognizing the importance of imagination and the role it plays in understanding reality.
...It is important but not necessary for parents to encourage fantasy play in their children, says Dr. Woolley. If the child already has an imaginary friend, for instance, parents should follow their children's lead and offer encouragement if they are comfortable doing so, she says. Similarly, with Santa, if a child seems excited by the idea, parents can encourage it. But if parents choose not to introduce or encourage the belief in fictitious characters, they should look for other ways to encourage their children's imaginations, such as by playing dress-up or reading fiction.
...Fantasy play is correlated with other positive attributes. In preschool children, for example, those who have imaginary friends are more creative, have greater social understanding and are better at taking the perspective of others, according to Marjorie Taylor, a psychology professor at the University of Oregon...
A large part of my interests in the field of psychology are predicated on the benefits of encouraging imagination and self-direction for children. Anyone who's spent any time really interacting with children and meeting them on their level should understand this.
Originally, when I decided to go into psych, my idea was that I would use role-playing games (a long-time passion of mine) as a tool to help children deal with their challenges at a distance, projecting any problems onto an avatar before having to tackle it themselves. These aren't the first studies to have shown benefits from imaginative activities.
Health Care Coal Recipients
By Wade
It's sad that our senators can't be good for goodness' sake so close to the holidays. I know that this blog has been featuring some posts that shed a positive light on the health care bills, but as with anything, there's always going to be some problems, and here are a few:
It's not surprising that Republicans are using this as their new ad hoc reason to oppose the bill, and while I can't disagree with them that this is a nice little steaming pile of BS, it wouldn't matter what this bill said. Republicans are going to oppose it because it is not a Republican bill. Their true goal lies in obstructing anything the Democrats plan to do, no matter the cost for the nation.
Having said that, there are still plenty of good reasons to pass the bill. We're aiming for "more perfect" not "perfect."
It's sad that our senators can't be good for goodness' sake so close to the holidays. I know that this blog has been featuring some posts that shed a positive light on the health care bills, but as with anything, there's always going to be some problems, and here are a few:
Nebraska, the state of once-skeptical Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, would be exempt from paying for Medicaid's expansion, a gift worth $100 million, under the Senate plan. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., also negotiated $600 million in additional Medicaid benefits for his state over 10 years, and Massachusetts would get $500 million in Medicaid help. Louisiana would get $100 million in 2011 from the federal government for Medicaid
It's not surprising that Republicans are using this as their new ad hoc reason to oppose the bill, and while I can't disagree with them that this is a nice little steaming pile of BS, it wouldn't matter what this bill said. Republicans are going to oppose it because it is not a Republican bill. Their true goal lies in obstructing anything the Democrats plan to do, no matter the cost for the nation.
Having said that, there are still plenty of good reasons to pass the bill. We're aiming for "more perfect" not "perfect."
Parker Who?
By Wade
From Reuters:
If nothing else, I would say that the Democrats need to get health care enacted before election time so they at least have something to show for their time in power. It's smart politics on a few different levels now.
From Reuters:
U.S. Representative Parker Griffith switched parties on Tuesday and became a Republican...While this isn't quite the reverse-Specter, it's still something that bears consideration given the possibility that the Dems could still bungle the whole thing. Any loss of party support from a bill that passed like kidney stones in the first place does not bode well. Before you freak out though, remember, it's still 257 Dems to 178 Republicans in the House.
"I can no longer align myself with a party that continues to pursue legislation that is bad for our country," Griffith said in announcing his defection in his Alabama district.
If nothing else, I would say that the Democrats need to get health care enacted before election time so they at least have something to show for their time in power. It's smart politics on a few different levels now.
Zinc Es No Bueno?
By Wade
Well, not quite:
I know that with flu scares running rampant, and in some cases being legitimate, a lot of people are looking for little boosters to fortify their immune system. In my bathroom, I have a bottle of zinc supplements, and sure enough, they're 50 mg. I'm just lucky that I'm forgetful enough that I don't take them everyday. However, as with most science, this article would be more accurate if it said that Zinc may cause problems.
The article goes on to mention a couple of other studies about the potential dangers of zinc, but it doesn't ever list any back-up studies. The ending sentiment is a bit of good sense though:
Well, not quite:
The recommended daily intake is 11 milligrams for men and 8 milligrams for women. In a nation of plenty, it's easy to exceed those amounts.
There are more than 75 milligrams of zinc in six oysters, nearly 9 milligrams in a 3-ounce serving of cooked beef shanks, more than 3 milligrams in a cup of baked beans, 15 milligrams in a cup of some fortified cereals and 15 milligrams in many multivitamins...A typical, over-the-counter zinc supplement contains 50 milligrams. There are 13 milligrams in one popular brand of zinc lozenges.
I know that with flu scares running rampant, and in some cases being legitimate, a lot of people are looking for little boosters to fortify their immune system. In my bathroom, I have a bottle of zinc supplements, and sure enough, they're 50 mg. I'm just lucky that I'm forgetful enough that I don't take them everyday. However, as with most science, this article would be more accurate if it said that Zinc may cause problems.
Flinn and colleagues fed zinc-enhanced water to pregnant rats and to their babies after birth. The water contained hundreds of times as much zinc as normal tap water. Three months later, it took longer for the zinc-fortified rats to learn how to find a submerged platform in an underwater maze, compared with rats that weren't full of zinc.
The article goes on to mention a couple of other studies about the potential dangers of zinc, but it doesn't ever list any back-up studies. The ending sentiment is a bit of good sense though:
As we should have learned by now as a species; too much of anything is a bad thing.
When it comes to supplements, sucking on zinc lozenges as soon as you get a cold may help and probably won't hurt, experts say, as long as you don't suck on them all day every day for the entire flu season.
Thank You Gawker!
By Dave
Gawker sums up my exasperation with liberal dissatisfaction and outrage at Obama. The title says it all: News of First Major Progressive Legislation in 30 Years Enrages Liberals:
Come back to Earth, people! I understand. Liberals are passionate people. We care. We want to make the world a better place. But just because it doesn't happen overnight doesn't mean you pick up your toys and go home. We have to learn to start confronting the world as it is, not the world we wish it was. Rahm Emanuel is right, the only nonnegotiable principle here is success. If you want to change the world, this is the game you play. You move the ball a little bit down the field at a time. You put points on the board.
Gawker sums up my exasperation with liberal dissatisfaction and outrage at Obama. The title says it all: News of First Major Progressive Legislation in 30 Years Enrages Liberals:
Look — we like Alan Grayson. We will defend him against those centrist "oh but Democrats have to play nice" assholes who say he goes too far when he says truthful things about Rush Limbaugh. Alan Grayson gives good quote and is a credit to the House of Representatives. He should continue to let his freak flag fly.I mean seriously, I'm going to scream if I have to hear Olbermann, Markos, or anyone else rant about how this bill does nothing at all. Nothing except insure an additional 30 million people, heavily regulate insurers, reduce the deficit, etc, etc, etc.
But jesus, christ, an Alan Grayson 2012 primary challenge against Obama? Obama, who is not just "Bush-lite" but Bush-same! (Remember when Bush attempted to negotiate an international climate deal, pass a jobs-focused economic stimulus, reform the nation's health care industry, and come up with a hopefully coherent plan to end the Afghanistan war in one year? And remember how his attempts at all those things were stymied by an uncooperative and undemocratic Senate, but he still managed to make real and tangible gains on each of them? Oh, no, you probably don't remember that because it was a joke we were making about how you have lost all sense of perspective.)
Come back to Earth, people! I understand. Liberals are passionate people. We care. We want to make the world a better place. But just because it doesn't happen overnight doesn't mean you pick up your toys and go home. We have to learn to start confronting the world as it is, not the world we wish it was. Rahm Emanuel is right, the only nonnegotiable principle here is success. If you want to change the world, this is the game you play. You move the ball a little bit down the field at a time. You put points on the board.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Progressive Infrastructure
By Dave
Mark Schmitt at the American Prospect makes that case that the failure of the public option and other items on the progressive agenda are less the fault of the president and are due more to the strength of progressive infrastructure:
Mark Schmitt at the American Prospect makes that case that the failure of the public option and other items on the progressive agenda are less the fault of the president and are due more to the strength of progressive infrastructure:
None of this is to forgive Obama his errors of commission or omission. But just as his campaign was built on a base of organizing, online activism, and civic engagement that preceded him, so the success of his presidency and this Congress will depend on the strength of the progressive infrastructure. If progressives don't support these structures for policy development and advocacy, further failure will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. And the fault will lie not in our star but in ourselves.
WTF?
By Dave
World Net Daily, the absolute dregs of conservative blogging (or at least tied with Drudge) posts a poll asking what you'd get Obama for Christmas:
World Net Daily, the absolute dregs of conservative blogging (or at least tied with Drudge) posts a poll asking what you'd get Obama for Christmas:
Ahhhh, racism. Just in time for the Holidays!
Via Think Progress
Choices
By Dave
In response to left-wing bill-killers, The Wonk Room put together this excellent graphic of the benefits of reform, even suboptimal reform, when compared to the status quo:
H/T Ezra Klein
In response to left-wing bill-killers, The Wonk Room put together this excellent graphic of the benefits of reform, even suboptimal reform, when compared to the status quo:
More evidence that Pomegranates are good for you!
Historic Health Care Vote
By Dave
And so it begins...Health care reform has entered its final descent. At 1:18 am EST, the Senate made the first in a series of votes that will mark the passage of significant historic health care reform in this country. It is the largest social expansion since the Great Society programs. I've got to hand it to Harry Reid. He is on the cusp of achieving something pretty monumental. I've joked that passing health care reform in the Senate was harder than getting a rich man into heaven, but he seems about to do it.
The final vote went pretty much as expected, straight down party lines with no Republicans on board. So those months of placating the Olympia Snowe's of the world seem to have been all for naught. But c'est la vie. If we can pass it without them, so be it. Besides as a group, the Republicans have been 100% committed to pulling out whatever tricks they can to halt this legislation, including, just recently, praying for Democratic Senators to be unable to show up for the vote. The current refrain is that things are moving too fast, which, ironically, was the same refrain heard back at the beginning of summer. If working on this for eight months is fast, I would hate to see what slow looked like.
We're not out of the woods yet, there's a lot that can still trip this bill up, but we can see a light at the end of the tunnel. And what we saw today was pretty impressive.
And so it begins...Health care reform has entered its final descent. At 1:18 am EST, the Senate made the first in a series of votes that will mark the passage of significant historic health care reform in this country. It is the largest social expansion since the Great Society programs. I've got to hand it to Harry Reid. He is on the cusp of achieving something pretty monumental. I've joked that passing health care reform in the Senate was harder than getting a rich man into heaven, but he seems about to do it.
The final vote went pretty much as expected, straight down party lines with no Republicans on board. So those months of placating the Olympia Snowe's of the world seem to have been all for naught. But c'est la vie. If we can pass it without them, so be it. Besides as a group, the Republicans have been 100% committed to pulling out whatever tricks they can to halt this legislation, including, just recently, praying for Democratic Senators to be unable to show up for the vote. The current refrain is that things are moving too fast, which, ironically, was the same refrain heard back at the beginning of summer. If working on this for eight months is fast, I would hate to see what slow looked like.
We're not out of the woods yet, there's a lot that can still trip this bill up, but we can see a light at the end of the tunnel. And what we saw today was pretty impressive.
Medical Term of the Day: Meningitis
By E.docSo, I don't want to freak anyone out, but meningitis is definitely scary. Okay, maybe I do want to freak you out a little bit...
Literally, meningitis is a swelling of the meninges ("meninges" + "itis"). The meninges are three layers of tissue that make up the protective covering of your central nervous system (brain and spinal cord). They also function as the matrix that supports blood flow and the cerebrospinal fluid. The swelling can be due to a few different factors, most commonly viral or bacterial infections. It is more common in children and infants, but is also seen in adults.
The main problem with meningitis is that there is not much space in between your brain and the inside of your skull - if swelling occurs, there really is no place for the swelling to go. With no place to go, the meninges push on the brain, causing symptoms like headache, delirium, and if it gets bad enough, brain damage.
If not caught early, the lasting effects of meningitis include deafness, blindness, loss of limbs, paralysis, mental retardation, and death. I'll leave it up to you to look for the gruesome pics.
Don't mess around with this one. If you have any of these symptoms combined, do not wait it out - see your doctor. Actually, you should probably go to the emergency room. Right now.
Thanks Boston College for the symptoms pic!
Health Care by the Numbers
by Wade
CNN has a good article up detailing in simple terms what the health care bills entail.
Here are some of the important bits:
During a time when most of the nation is financially suffering, it makes sense to tax those who can afford it, rather than levy more costs on those who have nothing to spare. I also don't feel one iota of pity considering that a lot of the people who reaped the benefit of worsening this economic downturn come from this income bracket.
This is fantastic. The federal poverty level is a joke in and of itself, and has been for years. It's hardly scaled with inflation alone, not to mention any of the other issues that have faced us in the past decade. Insuring more Americans will strengthen the nation as a whole. I think in the long run, if this bill passes, it'll have positive externalities (benefits for everyone, even those not covered by the insurance) for years to come. A healthier population is a boon to the entire nation, resulting in reduced severity of transmissible illnesses, fewer people taking sick days or working while sick, and a generation of children who are all insured, allowing more of them to survive to grow up and help us tackle the issues that face the world.
This is not going to kill small businesses, as has been alleged by detractors of public health care. The Senate plan also requires that companies with 50 workers or more pay a fee per worker if they use government subsidies, and that would go into effect by 2013.
Great, succinct explanation. Opponents of the bill have actually touted co-ops as the real answer to the health care problem. It seems we're going to get the best of both worlds.
There ya go, for all of you who were shouting for "government to keep its hands off of my Medicaid!"
CNN has a good article up detailing in simple terms what the health care bills entail.
Here are some of the important bits:
How will this be paid for?
The House plan imposes a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge on individuals with annual incomes over $500,000, as well as families earning more than $1 million.
The Senate plan increases the Medicare payroll tax on individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000 from the current 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent.
During a time when most of the nation is financially suffering, it makes sense to tax those who can afford it, rather than levy more costs on those who have nothing to spare. I also don't feel one iota of pity considering that a lot of the people who reaped the benefit of worsening this economic downturn come from this income bracket.
What if I can't afford coverage?
The House and Senate plans both include a hardship exemption for poorer Americans.
Both bills subsidize insurance for a family of four making up to roughly $88,000 annually, or 400 percent of the federal poverty level.
This is fantastic. The federal poverty level is a joke in and of itself, and has been for years. It's hardly scaled with inflation alone, not to mention any of the other issues that have faced us in the past decade. Insuring more Americans will strengthen the nation as a whole. I think in the long run, if this bill passes, it'll have positive externalities (benefits for everyone, even those not covered by the insurance) for years to come. A healthier population is a boon to the entire nation, resulting in reduced severity of transmissible illnesses, fewer people taking sick days or working while sick, and a generation of children who are all insured, allowing more of them to survive to grow up and help us tackle the issues that face the world.
I own a business. Do I have to provide coverage for my employees?
The House plan requires companies with a payroll of more than $500,000 to provide insurance or pay a penalty of up to 8 percent of their payroll.
This is not going to kill small businesses, as has been alleged by detractors of public health care. The Senate plan also requires that companies with 50 workers or more pay a fee per worker if they use government subsidies, and that would go into effect by 2013.
What if I have a pre-existing condition?Well... it's better than what we have now. I would like to live in a world where pregnancy is not a pre-existing condition.
Both the House plan and the Senate bill would eventually limit total out-of-pocket expenses and prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.
What is a health care co-op?
Nonprofit health cooperatives, or "co-ops," are being proposed as an option to compete with the private sector and as an alternative to a government-sponsored public health insurance option. Co-ops are owned and governed by the same people they insure.
The House and Senate plans both establish "co-ops" and strip insurance companies of an antitrust exemption that has been in place since the end of World War II.
Great, succinct explanation. Opponents of the bill have actually touted co-ops as the real answer to the health care problem. It seems we're going to get the best of both worlds.
What will happen to Medicaid?
The House and Senate bills would both significantly expand Medicaid, the government-run health care plan for the poor.
There ya go, for all of you who were shouting for "government to keep its hands off of my Medicaid!"
Will illegal immigrants be covered?
The House bill mandates insurance coverage for illegal immigrants and allows illegal immigrants to enroll in the public option and to buy private coverage in the national insurance exchange, but prohibits government subsidies for such private coverage.
The Senate plan exempts illegal immigrants from the health coverage mandate, and prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in the insurance exchanges.
I know this'll be a hot button issue in Colorado. A lot of people here malign illegal immigrants as being irresponsible free-loaders who don't pay any taxes, which simply isn't true. From personal experience working with illegal immigrants, I should only be so lucky to have such amicable and team-friendly co-workers at all of my jobs. A lot of the Colorado anti-immigrant sentiment amounts to the rabble-rousing "DEY TUK OUR JARBS!" that South Park lampooned. However, it would be just as disengenuous for me to say that all illegal immigrants are model citizens. As with all people, there will be a range across the spectrum.
After having read this, even despite Howard Dean's vociferous protests, I'm even more firmly in the same camp as Dave in wanting this bill to pass. It's not perfect, but when is government ever?
Finally, on a lighter note, C&L posted this relevant comic:
It Ain't Half-Good Either!
by Wade
Source.
"Brice Lalonde, France's ambassador to the climate change talks said, that while the Copenhagen accord was not ideal, it was not a failure either."
This sounds like echoes of the healthcare bill to me. At the very least, some limits were agreed to at Copenhagen, and I'm hopeful that something more stringent will be put forth in the future.
I know that the whole global warming thing has lost a lot of steam (pun intended), especially along the right wing within the past year (dropping 14 percent overall). People may cite the re-expansion of arctic ice as proof that global warming doesn't exist, ignoring other factors:
"Experts around the world believed the ice was recovering because satellite images showed it expanding. But David Barber says the thick, multi-year frozen sheets crucial to the northern ecosystem have been replaced by thin "rotten" ice that can't support weight..."
Regardless of whether or not it is human-caused, it is prudent to do something about it to ensure our continued existence on this planet. Even if you still don't believe that the icecaps are melting and that this is not a good thing, I think most Americans agree that finding an alternative to our current oil dependence is a good thing.
Source.
"Brice Lalonde, France's ambassador to the climate change talks said, that while the Copenhagen accord was not ideal, it was not a failure either."
This sounds like echoes of the healthcare bill to me. At the very least, some limits were agreed to at Copenhagen, and I'm hopeful that something more stringent will be put forth in the future.
I know that the whole global warming thing has lost a lot of steam (pun intended), especially along the right wing within the past year (dropping 14 percent overall). People may cite the re-expansion of arctic ice as proof that global warming doesn't exist, ignoring other factors:
"Experts around the world believed the ice was recovering because satellite images showed it expanding. But David Barber says the thick, multi-year frozen sheets crucial to the northern ecosystem have been replaced by thin "rotten" ice that can't support weight..."
Regardless of whether or not it is human-caused, it is prudent to do something about it to ensure our continued existence on this planet. Even if you still don't believe that the icecaps are melting and that this is not a good thing, I think most Americans agree that finding an alternative to our current oil dependence is a good thing.
dave!
damn, man, you're the only one with anything on the front page. therefore, i smite thee, with this useless, uninformative post! from hell's heart, i stab at thee!
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Unassaillable Logic?
By Dave
Newt Gingrich, the brains of the Republican Party, pulls out the old "because it snows in winter, global warming must be a hoax" argument via twitter:
Newt Gingrich, the brains of the Republican Party, pulls out the old "because it snows in winter, global warming must be a hoax" argument via twitter:
newtgingrich As callista and i watched what dc weather says will be 12 to 22 inches of snow i wondered if God was sending a message about copenhagenH/T Media Matters
newtgingrich After the expanding revelations of dishonesty in climategate having a massive snow storm as obama promises our money to the world is ironic
newtgingrich There is something jimmy carter like about weather service upgrading frrom winter storm to blizzard as global warming conference wants US $
The Best 70 Minute Review of the Phantom Menace Ever Made!
By Dave
This is epic!...and really dark and bizarre. Someone put together a 70 minute review describing why the Phantom Menace sucked. Watch all of it! Here's Part 1:
Via Slash Film
This is epic!...and really dark and bizarre. Someone put together a 70 minute review describing why the Phantom Menace sucked. Watch all of it! Here's Part 1:
Via Slash Film
Saturday, December 19, 2009
An Upside to Opposing the Bill?
By Dave
While I feel strongly that killing the health care bill would be a tragic loss for the American people, not to mention a blow to this administration and the Democratic party, there may have been one upside to the recent outburst by the left: It may have given Ben Nelson less leverage to negotiate his position. Here's Nate Silver:
While I feel strongly that killing the health care bill would be a tragic loss for the American people, not to mention a blow to this administration and the Democratic party, there may have been one upside to the recent outburst by the left: It may have given Ben Nelson less leverage to negotiate his position. Here's Nate Silver:
While the very nature of last-minute negotiations makes it hard to draw straight lines from point A to point B, it seems likely that if the kill-billers had not pushed back so hard against Lieberman, the bill would have been worse -- maybe much worse. It's sometimes said that a good compromise serves to make everyone equally unhappy. I'm not quite sure if that's the case here, but it does seem that Lieberman pushed things very close to the brink, to the extent that Nelson didn't have much leverage. Allow states to opt-out of their Medicaid obligations, for instance, as Nelson was said to have desired, and the unions might have gone from neutral to outright hostile to the bill, the opposition in the progressive blogosphere would have become nearly universal, and even the "wonk bloc" -- people like Ezra Klein and Jonathan Cohn and Paul Krguman and myself -- might have said this was a bridge too far. Nelson certainly could have voted to kill the bill outright, but he wasn't going to succeed in making it substantially more conservative.To the extent that the backlash by the left was a signal to conservative Dems that a pound of flesh had been exacted and no more would be tolerated, I say more power to 'em. However, to the extent that progressives really want to kill the bill because it lacks a public option, I still say that's downright crazy.
Andres Duany Interview
By Dave
Great interview with one the father's of "New Urbanism" Andres Duany. Duany talks about the problems with implementing Smart Growth strategies. I found this bit particularly thought-provoking:
Great interview with one the father's of "New Urbanism" Andres Duany. Duany talks about the problems with implementing Smart Growth strategies. I found this bit particularly thought-provoking:
BUILDER: What is the biggest impediment to smart growth?
DUANY: Citizen participation in the planning process is probably the biggest roadblock. If you ask people what they want, they don’t want density. They don’t want mixed use. They don’t want transit. They don’t even want a bike path in their back yard. They don’t want a grid that connects, they want cul-de-sacs. They can’t see the long term benefits of walkable neighborhoods with a greater diversity of housing types. This book is a quick read and is dedicated explicitly to them. It’s for the people, not for planning professionals.
BUILDER: Proponents say that smart growth can’t happen effectively without regional-scale planning because so much of it is about connectivity. How do you reconcile citizens’ rights to have a say in their communities with the need for big-picture thinking and decision-making?
DUANY: There is a theory of subsidiarity that considers at what level a decision is properly made. Most of today’s planning decisions--large and small--are made at the wrong level. Take transit. You do not ask the neighbor next to a 16-mile bikeway whether they want a bikeway in their back yard because they will say no. That’s a decision that needs to be made at the regional level. Conversely, let’s say you want to have free-range chickens to provide eggs for you and your neighbors. Right now that’s controlled by municipal ordinance. City zoning codes say no chickens, when really this is a decision that should be made at the block level, because chickens affect the block, not the whole city. Then you have municipalities enforcing rules about what color you can paint your house, which is ridiculous. That’s the wrong level of decision making.
Worst Christmas Song: Part 4
By Dave
If you're like self-righteousness, patronizing views of the developing world, and mullets, this songs for you.
This is the last in the 'worst' series. Starting tomorrow, we'll begin the 'best Christmas songs' series. Just so you know, we could have kept going. It turns out there are a ton of awful Christmas songs.
If you're like self-righteousness, patronizing views of the developing world, and mullets, this songs for you.
This is the last in the 'worst' series. Starting tomorrow, we'll begin the 'best Christmas songs' series. Just so you know, we could have kept going. It turns out there are a ton of awful Christmas songs.
A Decision Best Left to the Individual
By Dave
Ezra Klein points to David Waldman's take on the Nelson Amendment:
Ezra Klein points to David Waldman's take on the Nelson Amendment:
The problem with leaving the decision up to the states, he says, is that it doesn't go far enough. "I think states should leave the abortion question up to the counties," he explains. "Then I think counties should leave the abortion question up to municipalities. Then the neighborhoods should leave the abortion question up to each block." And each block, as you might have guessed, should leave the abortion question up to each household.
At the One Yard Line
By Dave
Big news today! The Democratic Caucus has struck a compromise with Ben Nelson over abortion and it looks like Reid has his 60 votes. They are now scrambling to get this done before anything else can derail it. Here’s Reid’s schedule:
Speaking of Stupak, it sounds like he may try to block the Nelson language, if that's what comes out of the conference committee. In order to pose any real threat, Stupak needs to keep 45 of the 64 conservative House Dems who helped push his amendment. I don't think it's clear yet who in his coalition couldn't as easily be satisfied with the Nelson compromise. But my guess is, that at this point Stupak's opposition will be a minor roadblock.
Big news today! The Democratic Caucus has struck a compromise with Ben Nelson over abortion and it looks like Reid has his 60 votes. They are now scrambling to get this done before anything else can derail it. Here’s Reid’s schedule:
• 1 a.m. MONDAY – To end debate on “a manager’s package” that includes all the latest changes to the bill. 60 votes required.The Nelson compromise essentially tries to keep federal money from subsidizing insurance plans that cover abortion procedures. Apparently, it give states the ability to 'opt-out' of receiving those funds. It's by no means an optimal compromise. The Pro-Choice Caucus is obviously upset, but it sounds like it is less bad than the Stupak Amendment.
• 7 a.m. TUESDAY – To approve the manager’s package. Simple majority required.
• Also TUESDAY – To end debate on Mr. Reid’s original health care proposal, as amended by the manager’s package. 60 votes required.
• 1 p.m. WEDNESDAY – To approve Mr. Reid’s original proposal. Simple majority required.
• Also WEDNESDAY – To end debate on the finalized health care legislation. 60 votes required.
• 7 p.m. THURSDAY, Christmas Eve (or anytime after the prior vote if all senators agree) – To approve the final bill. Simple majority required.
Speaking of Stupak, it sounds like he may try to block the Nelson language, if that's what comes out of the conference committee. In order to pose any real threat, Stupak needs to keep 45 of the 64 conservative House Dems who helped push his amendment. I don't think it's clear yet who in his coalition couldn't as easily be satisfied with the Nelson compromise. But my guess is, that at this point Stupak's opposition will be a minor roadblock.
Friday, December 18, 2009
From Fox News:
"Former comedian Al Franken apparently is done cracking jokes.
...
Unlike during his days on "Saturday Night Live," no one is laughing."
Yeah, it's almost as if he's acting exactly how he said he would when he won the Senate seat! What a great example of Fox's brazenly bad reporting to continue to qualify Franken as "Mr. Funny Guy," as the title suggests. Franken has proven time and time again that he's the kind of person we want on Capitol Hill, the kind that actually reads bills.
"Former comedian Al Franken apparently is done cracking jokes.
...
Unlike during his days on "Saturday Night Live," no one is laughing."
Yeah, it's almost as if he's acting exactly how he said he would when he won the Senate seat! What a great example of Fox's brazenly bad reporting to continue to qualify Franken as "Mr. Funny Guy," as the title suggests. Franken has proven time and time again that he's the kind of person we want on Capitol Hill, the kind that actually reads bills.
Help Me Jeebus
You might wanna put a pillow on your desk to prepare for the inevitable head thumping.
Undersea nuclear Christian warrior! The new toy from Hasbro! Er... actually just the crazy guy on Wheel of Fortune. DURP!
Undersea nuclear Christian warrior! The new toy from Hasbro! Er... actually just the crazy guy on Wheel of Fortune. DURP!
Microsoft Seeks to Continue to Lose Money
Source.
Here's the relevant bits:
I love Wii Fit. I love that video games have avenues for bettering your body and mind (Big Brain etc.). I will be very interested to see where they go with this. If Microsoft still has business sense, then they will take a similar route to Nintendo and incorporate this into a game where only you and your closest friends will be able to see just how chubby you've gotten. Otherwise, Microsoft will face the same deserved ridicule that Lincoln University received.
Here's the relevant bits:
"An avatar generator for a virtual environment reflects a physiological characteristic of the user, injecting a degree of reality into the capabilities or appearance...Physiological data that reflect a degree of health of the real person can be linked to rewards of capabilities of a gaming avatar, an amount of time budgeted to play, or a visible indication. Thereby, people are encouraged to exercise."
I love Wii Fit. I love that video games have avenues for bettering your body and mind (Big Brain etc.). I will be very interested to see where they go with this. If Microsoft still has business sense, then they will take a similar route to Nintendo and incorporate this into a game where only you and your closest friends will be able to see just how chubby you've gotten. Otherwise, Microsoft will face the same deserved ridicule that Lincoln University received.
Whether the weather....
It really isn't a surprise that Bill Kristol thinks Ben Nelson should filibuster health care reform because it might snow.
Everyone knows it's classical neoconservative theory that when the chance of percipitation in DC gets above 50% we should screw the poor and go to war.
Everyone knows it's classical neoconservative theory that when the chance of percipitation in DC gets above 50% we should screw the poor and go to war.
File Under: IOKIYAR
IOKIYAR.
From the WaPo, this pretty much sums it up:
"They are prepared to jeopardize funding for troops at war," Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said Thursday evening. "If Democrats did that, there would be cries of treason."
Two things: 1) Why aren't there cries of treason?
2) Why are the Democrats so much worse at spinning their blunders than the Republicans?
Seriously, Durbin is absolutely right about this. This would be a minor mass media explosion if the roles were reversed. And how is it that, even still, in the face of a bill that could potentially give millions of people much-needed healthcare, we still have people like Nelson throwing minor tantrums over abortion? At the very least, Feingold (D-Wis.) puts aside his personal disagreement with a Pentagon spending bill to block the filibuster, but too many other Dems are refusing to follow this good example. I know we've come a long way into understanding why the left seems to collapse in on itself whenever it should be powerful and dictating the agenda (see: George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant for starters), I'm just wondering what else it'll take besides a mandate rewarding one of the most well-run presidential campaigns in history.
Regardless, the meat of the article is a demonstration of something I've always maintained: Republicans are like the Sith. Fear, anger, hatred, and deceit are their weapons, and they wield them well.
Addendum: And here's the exciting conclusion.
From the WaPo, this pretty much sums it up:
"They are prepared to jeopardize funding for troops at war," Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said Thursday evening. "If Democrats did that, there would be cries of treason."
Two things: 1) Why aren't there cries of treason?
2) Why are the Democrats so much worse at spinning their blunders than the Republicans?
Seriously, Durbin is absolutely right about this. This would be a minor mass media explosion if the roles were reversed. And how is it that, even still, in the face of a bill that could potentially give millions of people much-needed healthcare, we still have people like Nelson throwing minor tantrums over abortion? At the very least, Feingold (D-Wis.) puts aside his personal disagreement with a Pentagon spending bill to block the filibuster, but too many other Dems are refusing to follow this good example. I know we've come a long way into understanding why the left seems to collapse in on itself whenever it should be powerful and dictating the agenda (see: George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant for starters), I'm just wondering what else it'll take besides a mandate rewarding one of the most well-run presidential campaigns in history.
Regardless, the meat of the article is a demonstration of something I've always maintained: Republicans are like the Sith. Fear, anger, hatred, and deceit are their weapons, and they wield them well.
Addendum: And here's the exciting conclusion.
The Questions that Keep Chuck Norris Awake at Night
Like what if the Virgin Mary wanted to have an abortion and the government agreed to pay for it....
Via The Daily Dish
"What would have happened if Mother Mary had been covered by Obamacare? What if that young, poor and uninsured teenage woman had been provided the federal funds (via Obamacare) and facilities (via Planned Parenthood, etc.) to avoid the ridicule, ostracizing, persecution and possible stoning because of her out-of-wedlock pregnancy? Imagine all the great souls who could have been erased from history and the influence of mankind if their parents had been as progressive as Washington's wise men and women! Will Obamacare morph into Herodcare for the unborn?," -Chuck Norris, Human Events....seriously....
Via The Daily Dish
Medical Term of the Day: Scabs and Synthetic Platelets
Hooray for scabs!Platelets, or Thrombocytes, are the small, non-nuclear cells in your blood that are one of the main factors that cause clotting. When you cut yourself deep enough to cause bleeding, a mechanism is activated in which platelets are sent to the site of the wound and begin to build up. They are irregularly shaped, so they catch onto each other and the other components of your blood to basically form a dam. As the site is exposed, the dam dries up and becomes our good friend the Scab.
Scabs are a very important part of the healing process. A scab is like a bandaid that is made directly from your body! They are great protection against infection, and as they cover the wound site, they allow for the regeneration of cells that will replace the tissue that was lost in the initial damaging of the area.
(photo courtesy of photobucket)
New research is being done on synthetic platelets. Scientists are working on a powder that can be administered intravenously to a patient with severe bleeding to speed up the clotting process. This is great, because some people have blood-clotting conditions called Thrombophilias in which their body has a hard time producing clots. This can be due to lack of platelets or inefficient mechanisms of the blood.
This research will be especially helpful for trauma that causes internal bleeding. As it stands, internal bleeding is a big problem for doctors because you have to physically get to the site to stop the bleeding, which means, in some cases, opening the patient up and having to clamp the blood vessels closed. BUT, if the bleeding is somewhere critical, such as the BRAIN, the patient is S.O.L. (wear a helmet everywhere!)
If surgeons could simply give the patient an IV drip of clotting agent, then there would be more time to find the injury and take care of it.
The Upside of Supporting the Bill: Updated
In response to my post, a friend writes:
Here are some of the upsides of the bill:
I would support the outrage coming from the left if I thought it could achieve something tangible. But I don't. The votes don't exist to keep a public option. Worse, I'm afraid this outrage will only convince people that success is a failure.
Unfortunately, the Senate is broken and majority rule doesn't carry the day. Democrats need 60-votes, 100% group compliance, to pass this bill plus a Republican or two. The leverage lies with those at the margin. So we get people like Lieberman, who can anoint themselves as the '60th vote.' With that power, Lieberman destroyed a really good compromise for what appears to be no good reason.
And while that really sucks, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We can't walk away at the finish line. Starting back over, beginning from scratch, is a recipe for disaster.
If the bill fails, and reform collapses, it is likely that Congress will become more risk averse and enact even less of the President's agenda, Democrats will look like failures, and the momentum will be given to the teabaggers. To me, this is an unacceptable alternative.
People won't leave the Democrats because they didn't go far enough, but they'll leave if Dems do nothing at all. Just because we can't finish the journey in one step doesn't mean it's not worth taking that step. Our system favors the incremental revolutionary.
Final thought: why can't Democrats come back, after this passes, with a reconciliation bill to add the parts they still want? Why does this bill have to fail?
Update: Krugman says 'pass the bill"
I don't see the upside of supporting the Senate Bill. When people realize how bad it is, they will abandon the Democratic PartyThere's plenty to be upset about, but we can't walk away without a victory. It has come too far, with too much heartache along the way. I'm not unconditionally supportive of the Senate Bill, it's not perfect. It doesn't help as many people as it could with the Medicare Buy-in or the Public Option. BUT, that doesn't mean it's not good.
Here are some of the upsides of the bill:
- Insurance companies are no longer allowed to deny people based on pre-existing conditions
- Insurance companies are no longer allowed to practice rescission (essentially canceling a patients contract because they became too expensive to cover)
- Millions more will gain access to health care, as many as 31 million more
- It will lower premiums and make healthcare more affordable
- It provides billions in subsidies for lower- and middle-income families
- It mandates minimum levels of coverage
- It controls costs by bundling payments, ensuring 'prudent purchasers' with exchanges, and by creating a Medicare Commission. (Ezra Klein has more)
- It creates health insurance exchanges. These are marketplaces that will certify, rate, and regulate insurers and will allow consumers to find and compare insurance plans.They also regulate how insurers raise their premiums. These exchanges will likely begin small but grow over time. As they grow, consumers should see prices become more competitive and the quality increase.
- No lifetime or annual limits.
I would support the outrage coming from the left if I thought it could achieve something tangible. But I don't. The votes don't exist to keep a public option. Worse, I'm afraid this outrage will only convince people that success is a failure.
Unfortunately, the Senate is broken and majority rule doesn't carry the day. Democrats need 60-votes, 100% group compliance, to pass this bill plus a Republican or two. The leverage lies with those at the margin. So we get people like Lieberman, who can anoint themselves as the '60th vote.' With that power, Lieberman destroyed a really good compromise for what appears to be no good reason.
And while that really sucks, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We can't walk away at the finish line. Starting back over, beginning from scratch, is a recipe for disaster.
If the bill fails, and reform collapses, it is likely that Congress will become more risk averse and enact even less of the President's agenda, Democrats will look like failures, and the momentum will be given to the teabaggers. To me, this is an unacceptable alternative.
People won't leave the Democrats because they didn't go far enough, but they'll leave if Dems do nothing at all. Just because we can't finish the journey in one step doesn't mean it's not worth taking that step. Our system favors the incremental revolutionary.
Final thought: why can't Democrats come back, after this passes, with a reconciliation bill to add the parts they still want? Why does this bill have to fail?
Update: Krugman says 'pass the bill"
Thursday, December 17, 2009
The Known Universe - Kottke.org
This is easily one of the coolest and most mind-boggling videos I've seen to date. To just think of the enormity of space, and of life in general! I used to get so overwhelmed as a kid, thinking about everything. After watching this, try not to get depressed at how meaningless our lives really are in the grand scheme of things....ha!
via kottke.org
via kottke.org
'Architecture Is Public Art'
Great Interview with architect Daniel Libeskind via Spiegel:
SPIEGEL ONLINE: You don't agree with critics like Christopher Hawthorne of the Los Angeles Times, who called CityCenter "one final echo of the boom years"?
Libeskind: Great visions that transform cities are not going to disappear. We won't lose heart and start building smaller houses now. Of course this is a difficult time for many. But it's also a good time to rethink architecture, to rethink what it is we're doing here.I've been hearing a lot about how the recession will put the breaks on suburban sprawl and gear development to focus on downtown, urban projects. I can only hope so. I dream of a time when America will embrace urbanity. Real urbanism. Urbanism that promotes diviersity and interaction, that provides places of quiet and places of gathering, places for commerce and for community. This is what cities should be like. We need to stop the messy expansion of dead, soulless places.
while we're on the topic of movies...
is anyone else as excited about this as i am? i hope so. the first was a great flick, downey jr. is about the damned perfectest (shut up, it's a word) choice for stark in hollywood. mickey rourke is always worth seeing and his whiplash looks captivating (no pun intended). scarlett johanssen is boybait anyways, and her casting as natasha romanoff (aka the black widow) looks to be spot on. the don cheadle / terrence howard fiasco shakes a bit of confidence (who wants broken character continuity?) but despite all of that, anticipation for this one is high (at least around my house).
i'm gonna admit something here. iron man? not my favorite superhero. i totally get the appeal, it's a realization of the american dream and all that. he's been through some great story arcs, sure, but i'll take spider-man any day of the week. that being said, i've enjoyed these movies a whole lot, frankly way more than any other marvel movie, especially after x3 and spider-man 3. here's to hoping the iron man lightning strikes twice!
Youtube leading the way?
from the daily galaxy: a youtube video just snagged someone a directing gig.
how awesome is that? this never would've happened twenty years ago. a potentially amazing director (and hopefully he leg-ups his cg team, that wasn't just well-directed, the visuals were phenomenal) would've just slipped through the cracks. good for fede alvarez, and good for us too. when his movie comes out, i'm gonna be first in line to catch it.
original article
how awesome is that? this never would've happened twenty years ago. a potentially amazing director (and hopefully he leg-ups his cg team, that wasn't just well-directed, the visuals were phenomenal) would've just slipped through the cracks. good for fede alvarez, and good for us too. when his movie comes out, i'm gonna be first in line to catch it.
original article
Inmates Running the Asylum
The John Birch Society is co-sponsoring the next CPAC...ugh...
This is another in a long line of moves by the right to court its base and further marginalize themselves from society at large. More power to 'em.
This is another in a long line of moves by the right to court its base and further marginalize themselves from society at large. More power to 'em.
Keep Gitmo?
In other depressing news, according to a Gallup poll, support for closing the Guantanamo Bay prison drops.
It's not a huge shift, but I hope the fear-mongering from Hannity/Beck/Cheney/et.al is not beginning to take hold.
It's not a huge shift, but I hope the fear-mongering from Hannity/Beck/Cheney/et.al is not beginning to take hold.
Reconciliation Skepticism
‘Kill the bill’ advocates believe we should scrap the existing bills and begin anew with the reconciliation process (which requires only 51 votes in the senate).
I’m very skeptical about this process for a couple of reasons:
1) Congress is generally very risk averse, the closer we get into 2010, the greater this aversion becomes. Speaker Pelosi has already said that 2010 will be a quiet time, in terms of controversial legislation.
2) Killing the bill will take the wind out of the sails of legislators and give the momentum to the teabaggers and the ‘Party of No.’ Republicans are determined that health care be Obama’s ‘waterloo.’
3) Health care only passed in the House by 5 votes and that was with the Stupak Amendment. Will the Blue Dogs come along this time? Are there even 50 votes in the Senate to pass a reconciliation bill?
4) A reconciliation bill could take a long time to hash out in both chambers. Does Congress, orAmerica
5) A reconciliation bill might not actually do what supporters think it will. Reconciliation only deals with budgetary issues, not regulatory issues. So, no banning rescission or policies that deny people with pre-existing conditions.
6) Even if Congress wants to scale back the number of controversial issues, big issues loom in 2010. Regulating the financial industry, passing worthwhile energy legislation, winding down U.S. involvement in Iraq, etc., are all potential 2010 or 2011 issues that Democrats will need 60 votes on. Don’t collapse the big tent out of spite.
I’m very skeptical about this process for a couple of reasons:
1) Congress is generally very risk averse, the closer we get into 2010, the greater this aversion becomes. Speaker Pelosi has already said that 2010 will be a quiet time, in terms of controversial legislation.
2) Killing the bill will take the wind out of the sails of legislators and give the momentum to the teabaggers and the ‘Party of No.’ Republicans are determined that health care be Obama’s ‘waterloo.’
3) Health care only passed in the House by 5 votes and that was with the Stupak Amendment. Will the Blue Dogs come along this time? Are there even 50 votes in the Senate to pass a reconciliation bill?
4) A reconciliation bill could take a long time to hash out in both chambers. Does Congress, or
5) A reconciliation bill might not actually do what supporters think it will. Reconciliation only deals with budgetary issues, not regulatory issues. So, no banning rescission or policies that deny people with pre-existing conditions.
6) Even if Congress wants to scale back the number of controversial issues, big issues loom in 2010. Regulating the financial industry, passing worthwhile energy legislation, winding down U.S. involvement in Iraq, etc., are all potential 2010 or 2011 issues that Democrats will need 60 votes on. Don’t collapse the big tent out of spite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)