I’m not really that bothered with the Democrats leaning towards higher income taxes for the rich as the easy out for health care financing instead of any number of far superior funding options. As injustices go, adding a couple percent to the income taxes of the top one percent ranks pretty low. Besides, historically, these marginal rates remain extremely modest.
But being a minor injustice is not the same thing as being just. Perhaps the Democrats are being politically savvy, picking the popular target and avoiding political pain. Perhaps if they charged through with a good revenue source (capping or eliminating tax deductions for employer contributions to health care with the current health reform proposals or a VAT for an ideal health reform proposal) it would be political suicide and the outcome would be far worse. That would certainly be the argument, but I’m not sure it is true.
Democrats as a breed seem to underestimate the value of leadership while Republicans underestimate the value of good policy. Republicans will lead the public off a cliff while Democrats will follow the public off a cliff. What we seem to lack are those leading the public away from the cliff. Those willing to lay out why they will benefit from a just system that taxes everyone on a fairly equal percentage basis and provides everyone equal benefits. It is fact that this will benefit most people, but Democrats are not capable of communicating this because people will lie about them and say it isn’t true.
I have sold more than one staunch Republican on a health reform proposal that is also many a liberal health wonk’s dream (it is very similar to a plan proposed by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm’s brother). I feel like I could sell populists on this plan too because it has an intuitive comfort and simplicity about it. Hell, the closest plan to it in Congress is Wyden-Bennett, a bill with a number of co-sponsors on both sides of the aisle. And I don’t even have President Obama’s rhetorical gifts. I think if the Democrats stopped putzing around and started to actually sell what they see as good policy, they might get things done.
I’m a critic of the institutional structure of the American government, preferring something more democratically representative and streamlined to allow for policy action. The usual criticism of this view is “we need the checks and balances.” Well, how are they working?
The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.
Because James Madison did not properly anticipate political parties and their ability to choose party over branch and because he does not seem to have fully anticipated how his checks would fail to constrain the fetishization of the Presidency into a truly singular national leader (rather than a humble administrator, see my criticism of how many liberals want Obama to be monarchical), we manage to have all the disadvantages of no checks and balances while keeping all the disadvantages of them.
Somehow, presidential systems internationally have been much more subject to authoritarian takeover than parliamentary systems, even with all the institutional checks and balances. Isn’t it time that we admit that James Madison was a failure? He didn’t accomplish what he claims to have strived towards in the Federalist Papers.
Those who have read this blog know that I don’t think much of Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader. For too long, the Senate has been the place where America’s hopes and dreams go to die. Sure, much of the problem with the Senate goes down to its roots (that it exists at all is a problem), but, especially with the strong majorities the Democrats have since 2008, there is no great excuse. Their majority is large enough that even the conservative Democrats are not numerous enough to really stop matters.
Well, Harry Reid’s chance to prove he is not completely useless as a leader is now. Successful health reform is vital to both the country and the Democrats’ political future. That means that a good leader would go to great lengths to make sure it happens, including negating Senators’ seniority or abolishing the filibuster. Reid can have health care pass with 50 votes even without reconciliation (which is not an ideal venue to actually pass meaningful health reform). Because good reform might only get 50 votes while bad health reform (bad policy always being more popular in the U.S. Congress) might get 60, Reid will have his chance to show strength in at the very least, demanding that all 60 Democrats vote for cloture and that the reform seek only at least 50 votes.
If he cannot ask himself, “what would Pelosi do?” and get good health care passed, he needs to be replaced as Majority Leader, and fast. Too much is at stake in the country right now for a passive Senate leader to hold up that which the House and the President wish to accomplish.
Kevin Drum is concerned by a California Supreme Court that makes it easier for defendants in DUI cases to challenge the validity of the breathalyzer test. They ruled this way because the test varies based on a wide variety of factors.
Drinking and driving is a serious problem and a lot of steps to fight including checkpoints and ignoring possible error in the testing during prosecution can certainly help to reduce this problem. That is not good enough because saving lives is not the only concern of government. Government must also be concerned with protecting civil liberties.
If the law states that you cannot drive with BAC above .08 and you are pulled over and measure in at .09 but there is reason to believe that the device was flawed and you were actually .07, this is relevant. Sure, you probably shouldn’t be driving at .07, but it isn’t against the law, and our legal system is intended to assure that no innocent person is ever convicted, even if the cost is letting guilty people go free occasionally.
So if we are to honor our legal principles (which I think we should), it is only right that we allow challenges to the accuracy of the tool used as evidence of guilt, even if that ability leaves it open to abuse. Going even further, we should probably do away with DUI checkpoints altogether, as they amount to fishing expeditions, “searching” individuals without ever displaying a reasonable suspicion of the commission of a crime.
As a side note, once at a bar I played the breathalyzer “game” (you pay a buck and blow into the hole and it tells you your BAC). I blew a .1 when it probably should have registered something somewhat below that (say a .07. The thing is, I did not wait the instructed time between my previous drink and doing the test, overestimating my BAC. When I am just messing around at a bar (prior to walking back to my hotel), that error is meaningless, but if a similar error were involved in a driving situation, suddenly an innocent (according to the law) individual is being found guilty.
Via John ColeApparently Gregg Easterbrook had previously claimed string theory is intelligent design for rocket scientists, an unproven/unprovable grand theory based on faith. His point is to knock those smarty-pants scientists off their podium of alleged scientific dispassion and reveal them as no different than the religious fundamentalists.
One problem, the two situations are not the same. Intelligent design is directly refuted by the scientific evidence not to mention common sense. Who among us cannot easily think of a dozen flawed design elements of humanity for every element that is supposedly too complex to occur through evolution.
String theory on the other hand, simply lacked proof one way or the other. Limitations in our ability to understand had prevented any definitive assertion. But apparently scientific advances have allowed some progress in support of string theory.
The scientific method is such that ideas are able to be considered until something is discovered that specifically refutes them, in which they are adjusted or replaced by new ideas that capture both the old and new understanding. That means there is a lot of unknowns and nothing is known for sure. But at least science has an honesty in its doubt.
The New York Times has an interesting personal story from one of the men involved in the big affirmative action case that was recently decided by the Supreme Court. I recommend it; it puts a face to the victims of the insistence on artificial racial equality rather than merit, and that face is not always white.
It has long been established that murder rates are correlated with ice cream sales, now we can claim that they are also inversely correlated with umbrellas. I advise you to always carry an umbrella with you as protection against crime.
I jest, but correlation can do this to us. Spurious correlations are those that appear linked because they have the same cause. People eat ice cream when they are hot, they also commit crimes when they are hot. People carry umbrellas when it is raining, and they aren’t as apt to commit crime during a rainstorm. Huzzah!
Anyway, this article does discuss things properly, though it is not remotely interesting news as it fits right in with that previously established link between weather and crime.
This irks me. A feminist blog complains about Rilo Kiley selling out for a Carl’s Jr. ad they find offensive, telling lead singer Jenny Lewis:
Even though you never outright said it, I always thought of you as a feminist. You appear confident, tough and totally in charge of your sexuality. Even if you don’t identify as a feminist, I thought you’d at least have the wherewithal to correctly identify Carl’s Jr. as a socially unconscious corporation with despicable and offensive commercial advertisements and consequently respond accordingly when asked to license your song to them.
For more perspective, here is the ad:
Basically they stake a position that, the advertisement uses sex to sell something, ergo, it must be a horribly offensive thing. But this only makes sense if sex is bad. As far as I can tell, the Carls Jr. ads have tended to be merely sexy, not particularly sexist. They don’t mock gender deviation (in fact they embrace attractive women getting messy with a big burger…very unfeminine) and they don’t insult the women featured in the ad.
Sure, there are bad ways to use sex, and sexual appeal should not be a sole criteria of value in society…but sexual appeal is not something that should be forbidden from holding any value at all. It seems that it should be considered as valid a thing to value as intellect or strength or work ethic, various other traits that might bring one success in life. And as long as we exist as sexual beings (and when we cease to do so, we will cease to exist), sex will be valued and watching an attractive woman without a lot of clothes on will provide utility and thus be effective in advertisement. What is lacking is what harm such a thing causes unless those making this feminist critique are positing that sex is bad.
A witness of a crime here in Colorado described the perp as having “a big nose; of Jewish or Eastern European descent” among the other descriptions. The distribution of this description has stirred a firestorm. Denver Post columnist Susan Greene finds this use of stereotype <a href=http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_12717800disturbing:
If he had horns, the resident failed to mention it.
As usual, I think people are being a bit sensitive. The one that strikes me most is those adamant that being Jewish is a religious designation. I’d be happy to accept this if they are willing to stop playing up claims of racism when Israel is criticized, but technically, all Jews have a Jewish mother, and as such, there is a common ethnic history (diluted though it may be now) for the Jewish people. And different ethnicities have different physical traits that are common (though not universal). Jews, much like many other ethnic groups of the region they originated from (Persians, Italians, etc), have a prominent nose as one of those traits.
There are physical markers that might make someone think a person looks Eastern European or Jewish. I expect the witness, wanting to help get the perp caught thought he/she would be helpful by adding as many elements as possible. They did not however seem to predict that the PC police would be attacking them for their effort. I worry about those who reacted with such fury, because unlike them, I don’t seem to think having a big nose is a bad thing, something I would consider a slur if someone implied I had one.
Wal-Mart supports the employer mandate as part of health reform. It baffles me that business has not been a stronger supporter of health reform over the years as the US health system is a major hinderance to competition with foreign producers. It is strange and a bit bittersweet that the employer mandate is the element that is getting the boost here by Wal-Mart.
As a political matter, the employer mandate is probably a good thing as the reform needs to be paid for and I imagine the public likes the idea of making “evil business” pay for it rather than paying for it directly through taxes. And as I’m one who does not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, I say ok.
But as a pure policy matter, the employer mandate isn’t exactly a great idea. First off, we shouldn’t really think of it as employers paying so much as employees. Employer health payments are basically competitive goods to wages in the budget. The issue of employer-sponsored health insurance is usually close to a zero-sum game in which neither will gain or lose too much.
However, in a broader perspective, employer contributions to health care join corporate taxes as an inefficient method of taxation. Businesses have the (imperfect) ability to pass taxes on to customers through higher prices or to employers through reduced wages while individuals do not have this ability. Business profit also ends up at the individual level anyway, through salaries and dividends. And while we would generally consider business profit as a positive thing, there are things we might tax (consumption) that we do actually want less of.
If it were feasible to pay for health reform through the removal of the employer health benefit tax exemption and the introduction of a VAT rather than using an employer mandate, it would be a far superior avenue. As it happens, those approaches have limited to no political viability while this one has more, so be it. Hopefully this will mark a positive step towards a reasonable health reform effort.
Posted by Bondo 
Posted by Bondo 
Posted by Bondo 
