Politics: Homo abortionists vs the born again gun nuts

by **drsmooth** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 09:50:15

Werthless wrote:Here's a David Brooks columnabout why the best health care reform plans may not be implemented.

Much of Brooks' explanation (of, more precisely why the the most financially & politically sound plans may not be implemented; "best" suggests he actually knows which one would be best) pivots around things that Baucus's pet proposal does not address. The one I feel is pivotal is the tax-favored treatment of employer spending on health.

Curiously - or maybe not - employer groups have been somewhat less strident about preserving that treatment than insurers.

Part of the reason is that an influential (& I believe growing) fraction of employers understands that

a) they will always have incentives to fortify their workers' health, whether the tax code contributes or not
b) those incentives extend to bolstering population health as well
c) the reform that will be most valuable for them - and for a lot of people, whether they understand it or not - is health reform, rather than health care reform, & still less health insurance reform.

by **dajafi** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 09:58:44

Yeah, the Brooks column yesterday was what goosed my memory about Wyden/Bennett.

Between '93-'94 and what we're starting to see this year, there's really no issue that surfaces the uglier aspects of our political system quite like health care. In addition to the differences and inevitable comparisons between the Clintons and Obama, it will be very interesting to see if the permanent institutional forces will have shifted in the 15 years since we last took a real shot at this.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:22:51

I know this isn't a particularly original observation, but one of the biggest, consistent problems I think with the American political system is when we need to do something big and complicated, the compromise filled mess that ends up getting passed is so full of contradictions and random throw in proposals to make various swing segments happy that it ends up being a lot crappier than if you just let someone you mostly disagreed with write a purer law. Now I'm not saying I'd rather we just let Dennis Kucinich and PtK sit down in a room with a bag of weed and some organic munchies to formulate our nation's healthcare policy, but short of that I would wager pretty much any stand alone plan is going to end up being better than the crap the Senate churns out.

This is one of the reasons I hate the Specters and Snowes of the world. While I guess they are necessary to reach the requisite number of votes, their votes often come at the cost of wasteful additions or illogical subtractions so they can show that they were able to affect change by giving the proposal their support. And this is celebrated because they are bipartisan, which is apparently an end in and of itself.

by **jeff2sf** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:38:43

jerseyhoya wrote:I know this isn't a particularly original observation, but one of the biggest, consistent problems I think with the American political system is when we need to do something big and complicated, the compromise filled mess that ends up getting passed is so full of contradictions and random throw in proposals to make various swing segments happy that it ends up being a lot crappier than if you just let someone you mostly disagreed with write a purer law. Now I'm not saying I'd rather we just let Dennis Kucinich and PtK sit down in a room with a bag of weed and some organic munchies to formulate our nation's healthcare policy, but short of that I would wager pretty much any stand alone plan is going to end up being better than the crap the Senate churns out.

This is one of the reasons I hate the Specters and Snowes of the world. While I guess they are necessary to reach the requisite number of votes, their votes often come at the cost of wasteful additions or illogical subtractions so they can show that they were able to affect change by giving the proposal their support. And this is celebrated because they are bipartisan, which is apparently an end in and of itself.

Typical partisan claptrap (insert some other words here).

No of course the law that gets passed doesn't make "sense" in some ideologically driven meaning of the word, but that's SOOO much better than letting either right wing idiots or left wing idiots run the whole show. Compromise means you don't get everything you want, and some of what is objectionable to the other side gets toned down or removed altogether. Or some concerns of the other side are addressed.

So yeah, a law would not make a good novel, because you're reading a novel, getting a sense for where things are going and BAM DEUS EX MACHINA. And you're left wondering where the hell that came from. But the law isn't a novel that reflects the author's perceived reality or ideology, it's a living thing that reflects the realities at hand.

You tried running this crap out a few months ago and it made no sense then either. Snowe is a hero, not a goat.

by **dajafi** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:47:02

jerseyhoya wrote:I know this isn't a particularly original observation, but one of the biggest, consistent problems I think with the American political system is when we need to do something big and complicated, the compromise filled mess that ends up getting passed is so full of contradictions and random throw in proposals to make various swing segments happy that it ends up being a lot crappier than if you just let someone you mostly disagreed with write a purer law. Now I'm not saying I'd rather we just let Dennis Kucinich and PtK sit down in a room with a bag of weed and some organic munchies to formulate our nation's healthcare policy, but short of that I would wager pretty much any stand alone plan is going to end up being better than the crap the Senate churns out.

This is one of the reasons I hate the Specters and Snowes of the world. While I guess they are necessary to reach the requisite number of votes, their votes often come at the cost of wasteful additions or illogical subtractions so they can show that they were able to affect change by giving the proposal their support. And this is celebrated because they are bipartisan, which is apparently an end in and of itself.

This is mostly true. Once in awhile when there's clear need and you either have a sufficiently irresistible political dynamic (Medicare in the mid-'60s) or a balance of power and players like Reagan, O'Neill, Kemp and Bradley (tax reform in 1986), the system spits out something decent. Flawed as it was (and still is) and ugly as the road to getting there was, probably you could put welfare reform in there as well.

On the other hand, it's supposed to be difficult to do big things. And the reason both sides are so desperate to get bipartisan support--in addition to the obvious political CYA--is that without it, the likelihood is that the measure will get tossed when the other side takes back control. In the real world, you never get legislation by a baked PtK and Kucinich (or, I dunno, Werthless and Mike Pence bringing a Norquistian policy-porn fantasy to life); it's either flawed incoherent mess, or nothing.

The two big problems I have with this are, one, that sometimes it produces policy grotesques like Medicare Part D (which anyone with the least inclination toward fiscal conservatism deplores, but that Democrats will never, ever repeal in terror of upsetting seniors, nor will future Republican Congresses, for the same reason and since doing so would repudiate Bush); and two, when you have a potential existential threat like global warming, "it's supposed to be difficult" is a bug, not a feature.

by **drsmooth** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:54:00

jerseyhoya wrote: Now I'm not saying I'd rather we just let Dennis Kucinich and PtK sit down in a room with a bag of weed and some organic munchies to formulate our nation's healthcare policy, but short of that I would wager pretty much any stand alone plan is going to end up being better than the crap the Senate churns out.

"better"; hmmm....

it might DO more; move behavior to a greater degree in some direction or other. Very hard to say whether it's better.

No question that democracy is not good at making hard operational decisions about systemic change. The most adroit leaders can, at best, feint at "due process" while rigging up effective changes in the plumbing/wiring/infrastructure, and maybe leave the door open for satisfactory appeals where change pinches people (sometimes pinching their head off).

by **dajafi** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:05:28

God help me, I agree with Giuliani on something.

In fact, I'll go further: the only aspect of this I'm not pretty sure I agree with is the supermajority for tax increases. And I probably could be convinced on a variant of that, as he's right that our awful legislature is too quick to go that route.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:17:44

jeff2sf wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:I know this isn't a particularly original observation, but one of the biggest, consistent problems I think with the American political system is when we need to do something big and complicated, the compromise filled mess that ends up getting passed is so full of contradictions and random throw in proposals to make various swing segments happy that it ends up being a lot crappier than if you just let someone you mostly disagreed with write a purer law. Now I'm not saying I'd rather we just let Dennis Kucinich and PtK sit down in a room with a bag of weed and some organic munchies to formulate our nation's healthcare policy, but short of that I would wager pretty much any stand alone plan is going to end up being better than the crap the Senate churns out.

This is one of the reasons I hate the Specters and Snowes of the world. While I guess they are necessary to reach the requisite number of votes, their votes often come at the cost of wasteful additions or illogical subtractions so they can show that they were able to affect change by giving the proposal their support. And this is celebrated because they are bipartisan, which is apparently an end in and of itself.

Typical partisan claptrap (insert some other words here).

No of course the law that gets passed doesn't make "sense" in some ideologically driven meaning of the word, but that's SOOO much better than letting either right wing idiots or left wing idiots run the whole show. Compromise means you don't get everything you want, and some of what is objectionable to the other side gets toned down or removed altogether. Or some concerns of the other side are addressed.

So yeah, a law would not make a good novel, because you're reading a novel, getting a sense for where things are going and BAM DEUS EX MACHINA. And you're left wondering where the hell that came from. But the law isn't a novel that reflects the author's perceived reality or ideology, it's a living thing that reflects the realities at hand.

You tried running this crap out a few months ago and it made no sense then either. Snowe is a hero, not a goat.

It's not the Snowes and Specters that are the problem--our parties are supposed to be arenas where deals are hammered out. The problem lies in the unholy interest groups that create so many sacred cows nothing gets done. A moderate plan may be better than whatever ideological purists dream up. But we aren't getting that. We'll get a plan that protects all the various interest groups.

Think of it this way--the US spends a lot on health care, and everyone regardless of ideology would like to see those costs reined in. Except that those costs are someone else's profit. So, getting costs down gores someone's ox.

I believe that a strong party (which is very different from an ideologically pure party) that could tell the AMA (or the teacher's union if you want to talk about education or agri business if you want to talk about agriculture) to fuck themselves would have a better chance of passing decent reform right now.

It's all in Federalist 10.

by **allentown** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:44:20

Werthless wrote:Here's a David Brooks columnabout why the best health care reform plans may not be implemented.

Whether or not the taxation of employer-paid health plans is a good idea or not depends upon whether or not this move would accelerate the trend of employers ceasing health care benefits. Since about half of Americans are covered by these plans, this is not a trivial problem. The cost to the government of replacing these plans would vastly increase the cost of universal health coverage. A compromise to tax benefits above a certain value is a reasonable compromise, if it only effects perhaps the top third of employer programs in terms of cost and is only taxing perhaps a third of the value of those benefits. Much more than that and employers have little incentive to maintain coverage.

by **Werthless** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 14:28:07

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhhkF3dqXR0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailyuprising.com%2Fblog%2Fdailyscreening%2Fgreg-morton-obama-man-can%2F&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

by **Werthless** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 14:36:31

Citi giving raises of up to 50% in salaryto key people, to compensate for lower bonuses in the new compensation structure. There has been a recent exodus of executives.

The person said the changes would not affect the amount of an employee's compensation. By shifting the mix in compensation packages, the change could allow Citi to pay most employees as much as they received in 2008 while adhering to bonus caps. The person said the employees included traders, who tend to be compensated more heavily with bonuses, and middle- and lower-level managers whose compensation is more heavily weighted toward salaries.
...
A New York Times report published Wednesday said some employees salaries will rise by as much as 50 percent because of the change in compensation structure.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., a critic of financial companies' compensation, said of Citi in a statement, "they just don't get it." The statement called Citi's compensation changes "pay hikes."
...
Citi and other banks are likely reconfiguring their compensation to avoid losing talented workers to competitors. Some of the banks that received government loans during the mushrooming credit crisis last fall have already paid back their debt, and are no longer subject to compensation oversight, among them big banks like JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Those no longer under the government's compensation oversight are able to offer lucrative deals to entice employees away from other banks.

Citi has seen some defections from its ranks in recent months. The latest was the departure of Ajay Banga, CEO of its Asia Pacific division, who left to take a position at MasterCard Inc.

by **CFP** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 14:41:07

Sanford's stammering and nervousness in this press conference is awkward and strange.

by **dajafi** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 14:45:51

Torture Nation

The White House Press corps loves to laugh condescendingly at Helen Thomas because, tenaciously insisting that our sermons to others be applied to our own Government, she acts like a real reporter (exactly as -- according to Politico's Josh Gerstein -- White House reporters "could be seen rolling their eyes and shifting in their seats" when Obama called on The Huffington Post's Nico Pitney, who has done some of the most tireless work on Iran, gave voice to actual Iranians, and posed one of the toughest questions at the Press Conference). The premise of Thomas' question was compelling and (contrary to Obama's dismissal) directly relevant to Obama's answers: how is it possible for Obama to pay dramatic tribute to the "heartbreaking" impact of that Neda video in bringing to light the injustices of the Iranian Government's conduct while simultaneously suppressing images that do the same with regard to our own Government's conduct?

The reason Thomas' point matters so much is potently highlighted by a new poll from The Washington Post/ABC News released today -- not only the responses, but even more so, the question itself (click to enlarge image):

Half of the American citizenry is now explicitly pro-torture (and the question even specified that the torture would be used not against Terrorists, but "terrorist suspects"). Just think about what that says about how coarsened and barbaric our populace is and what types of abuses that entrenched mentality is certain to spawn in the future, particularly in the event of another terrorist attack. But even more meaningful is the question itself -- it's now normal and standard for pollsters to include among the various questions about garden-variety political controversies (health care, tax and spending policies, clean energy approaches) a question about whether one believes the U.S. Government should torture people (are you for or against government torture?) That's how normalized torture has become, how completely eroded the taboo is in the United States.

It would be one thing for the Obama administration to argue that there is no value in releasing torture photos specifically, and in investigating and imposing accountability for past abuses generally, if there were consensus among Americans that torture is wrong, barbaric and -- as Ronald Reagan put it (hypocritically but still emphatically) -- "an abhorrent practice" justifiable by "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever." But we have the opposite of that consensus: we have an ongoing debate over torture that is fluid, vibrant and far from settled, with half the population embracing the twisted and morally depraved pro-torture position.

by **kruker** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 14:55:37

Werthless wrote:Citi giving raises of up to 50% in salaryto key people, to compensate for lower bonuses in the new compensation structure. There has been a recent exodus of executives.

File this under: "What the fuck did you think was going to happen?"

by **kruker** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 15:04:47

dajafi wrote:Torture Nation

Human rights and morality issues aside, do people really not understand the ramifications of torture? That using these techniques only helps to draw a bolder line between "us" and "them". Torture only entrenches them in their position and encourages people to become more resolute in their cause. When the faction you are torturing is already willing to give their lives to the cause in the form of suicide bombings, torture can only increase the number of potential terrorists. Unless you're naive enough to believe that you can take people out of society, hold them indefinitely, use enhanced interrogation techniques on them and hope that this will not cause a chain reaction in their social network.

by **Squire** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 15:13:17

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford admits that he was in Buenos Aires, Argentina and not hiking on the Appalachian Trail and that he was in Brazil because he was having an affair. Krikeys.

SQUIRE

by **allentown** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 15:14:51

Squire wrote:South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford admits that he was in Buenos Aires, Brazil and not hiking on the Appalachian Trail and that he was in Brazil because he was having an affair. Krikeys.

SQUIRE

Argentina. I guess his Presidential aspirations are at an end.

by **kruker** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 15:17:16

I guess he really did want to do something exotic.

by **Woody** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 15:20:16

So wait. Who the hell just disappears for three days to have an affair without some kind of alibi? Or did his wife think he was hiking?

by **Woody** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 15:20:53

p.s. is there a politician out there NOT getting side action?

Archived

Politics: Homo abortionists vs the born again gun nuts