A Deficit of Honest Discussion

No matter which party is in power, the other party thinks that the budget deficit is a vital issue. The party in power, generally, considers it a lower priority.

But, at least for the time being, the GOP has convinced enough voters the issue is critical. So now both parties are talking about how to reduce our country's deficit spending.

Of course nobody is proposing anything that will seriously make a dent at any time in the foreseeable future. Each proposal simply reflects the ideological priorities of the proposer, and suggests cutting programs they don't like.

Anybody can play that game. See how easy it is to trim the deficit by $100 billion.


[more]

Talking the Talk

A few months ago, I wrote that Sarah Palin and other Tea Party darlings were fanning dangerous flames with their violent imagery, but that they were within their First Amendment rights to do so.

I also predicted the public would lose its sympathy for Tea Partiers after an event like Tucson's assassination attempt.

It's too soon to say whether my prediction will come true. However, it is clear there's been a backlash, in the form of calls for "civility." I'm opposed to those calls.

It's not that I'm opposed to civility. I'm not. Civility is greatly underrated.

But the principle of free speech is a foundation of this country. The way to protect against speech you don't like is not to tell people to shut up. It's to make a convincing argument why they are wrong.


[more]

Whose words?

Many are happy to interpret recent election results, but to me it's simple. People are out of work and taking it out on their elected officials.

According to my statistical analysis of past elections, the unemployment rate has been responsible for about a third of switched congressional seats. Further, when the unemployment rate is above about 7 percent, that contribution leaps to somewhere between half and two thirds.

When unemployment is high it is a huge factor in house seats being lost by the president's party. When unemployment is low, other factors come more into play.

Based on this theory, you could have predicted that Democrats would lose at least 40 seats in the House without looking at a single news story, poll result, party platform, or campaign ad.

But there's more to this story.

[more]

Scary Monsters

The Republicans have been working on their Halloween costumes for weeks. This year they are dressing as Founding Fathers.

Last month they introduced their "Pledge to America," giving the rest of us a frightening vision of their costume.

The basis for this pledge is the idea that the citizens of this country do not consent to our government and its actions. It echoes back to the Declaration's explicit dissolution of our bounds to Britain. Why is that frightening? Our nation is a representative democracy that depends on peaceful elections and transitions of power. Talk of revolution pretends that process is optional.

It's not. That process has held this country together for over 220 years.

[more]

W's last laugh

It's not totally correct to blame the pending tax increase on Bush. Although the 43rd President did push for and sign the law, it was Congress (primarily the Republicans) who came up with this clever scheme and wrote the laws that will raise all of our taxes on Jan. 1.

The tax acts of 2001 and 2003 included temporary tax cuts followed by corresponding increases. Republican marketing at the time focused on tax relief, but today's press focuses on the tax increase, conveniently while the other party holds the Presidency and Congress. The GOP gets all of the credit and none of the blame, in an election year to boot. Brilliant.

Of course, at the time there was no way to know Democrats would be in power when the tax increase was scheduled to tax place. That's just happy coincidence.

The sunset provision was purely a political ploy. By keeping the tax cuts in effect for fewer than ten years, Republicans could sidestep rules that would have required paying for them, a tacit admission that tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

[more]

Terrorist Cell Phonies

By U.S. law, "terrorism" is "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents." But ask 100 people and you`ll get 50 different definitions. One man`s terrorist is another`s freedom fighter. As Justice Potter Stewart said regarding pornography: "I know it when I see it."

Just as most Muslims don`t want to blow up airplanes and most anti-abortion advocates don`t want to kill abortion doctors, plenty of people who are sympathetic with the Tea Party goals condemn violence in furtherance of those goals. Clearly, membership in these groups is not sufficient to earn a label as a terrorist. The Tea Party movement is not a terrorist group.

But something scary is going on.

[more]

Take Me to your Leader

Everyone is making a big deal out of Scott Brown's recent victory in the Massachusetts senate race, but I can't figure out why.

The Democrats have the presidency and large majorities in both houses of Congress. One party having this level of control is not unheard of, but it certainly is not the norm historically.

The loss of a filibuster-proof majority is significant, but this supermajority only existed for about six months anyway, after Al Franken took his Senate seat in July.

When Obama ran his campaign, he was very clear about his priorities. In fact, much of his plan to help the economy included dealing with the long-term issues of health care, energy and education.

To summarize, Democrats won the presidency and increased their numbers in both houses of Congress after clearly telling us what their plans were. Then they started working on those plans, but found it hard to get agreement on the details. And now a large number of people are ready to dump the Dems before they even get a chance to put their plans in place.

[more]

No, You May Not Have this Test for Cancer!

A bunch of Republicans are pointing out that the new suggestions that mammograms and pap smears are overused means that under government health care they would be rationed.

The Republicans much prefer the current system in which the insurance companies ration services like this.

Health-Care Reform that Just Might be Workable

It may turn out that major health-care reform isn't politically feasible now. But that shouldn't stop us from making significant improvements to our woefully inadequate system.

The biggest problems with cost and coverage come from the insurance industry. And the only way insurance companies will learn to play nice without competition from the government is with new regulation.

Insurance companies have become de facto monopolies. If the only health care you can afford is via insurance offered by your employer, the insurance company has no incentive to keep you happy.

[more]

From Fat, Dumb and Happy to Healthy, Wealthy and Wise

Manufacturers use a tool called Pareto analysis to evaluate quality issues. They rank the problems and attack the biggest ones first.

I don't have to draw a Pareto chart to see where to start with health care costs. More than 75 percent of medical expenditures are for treating people with chronic diseases.

Chronic illnesses include cardiovascular disease, cancer, respiratory disease, and diabetes. A large percentage of cases are preventable, or can at least be managed less expensively.

[more]

Keep on Clunkin'!

The cash for clunkers program may be many things. However, environmentally friendly isn't one of them.

Look at it this way. Suppose you trade in a car that gets 18 MPG for one that gets 28 MPG, and that you driver 12,000 miles per year. Also, assume that you will keep the new car for the typical six years.

For each of those six years, you will be burning 428 gallons of gas instead of 667 gallons. You save 238 gallons per year, or about 35% of the gas you would have burned.

A study by Toyota showed that as much as 28% of the carbon dioxide emissions generated during the life of a car occur during its manufacture and its transport to the dealer. That means that up to 38% more CO2 is generated than the CO2 generated from the burning of fuel during normal operation.

So, you emit 35% less CO2 during operation, but the act of buying a new car results in up to 38% more CO2 just to get you that car.

Ignoring the economic impact, the very best thing you can do is keep driving that car until it doesn't go any more.

The only exception I can think of is if you put lots and lots of miles on your car every year and plan to keep it a long time. Then, it might make more environmental sense to buy a new, more fuel-efficient car, and donate your old car to charity.

But scrapping the old car, as is required by law under this program, is pure waste.

The People v. Free Exercise of Religion

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." -- Amendment I to the U.S. Constitution

"The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states." -- Defense of Marriage Act

Congress is prohibited from restricting the free exercise of religion, yet an act of Congress invalidates Fran and Anna Simon's Jewish wedding -- sanctified by Rabbi Jamie Korngold. [more]

This is part 2 in a 3-part series. Read part 1.

AIG on their Faces

So, whose fault is it that AIG is using their bailout money to pay huge (by most people's standards) bonuses to the very people who made the bad decisions that brought them to where they needed the bailouts?

Well, clearly there is plenty of fault for Bush and the 110th Congress, as well as Obama and the 111th Congress. They tell us that these bonuses were required by contract and had to be paid.

But didn't the big automakers just get some bailout money, and wasn't one of the conditions that they had to renegotiate union contracts? Clearly it can be done.

Also, retention bonuses are paid to keep good employees on board. What's the worst that would have happened? These great employees would have left?

But I think a huge part of the blame falls to all of us, who seem to require quick action from our government in preference to correct action. We've seen it many times, and rarely do the legislators involved ever get called to task for responding to this primal fear.

It seems to me that the best time to enact protections against the things that contributed to the current economic crisis is when writing "emergency" legislation. Wouldn't it make sense to tie any stimulus or bailout money to regulations and protections against financial abuses, rather than spending the money and then going back later and trying to pass the new regulations when memories have dimmed?

The Only Way to Stop Global Warming?

I write quite a few essays about global warming. These include several ideas on how individuals can help address the problem. But I'm not naive enough to think that even a significant minority of well-intentioned consumers doing what they think is right will have a measurable impact.

Some of my Libertarian-leaning friends say that the solution should be left to the free market. (At least they are mostly agreeing that the problem is real.) But here's the problem with that. Given enough time (say, 100,000 years), the free market will arrive at a solution. But in the meantime, lots of people and species will suffer, and most of them are not directly related to the companies and individuals causing the biggest impacts. You see, the flaw in this thinking is that spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is definitely impinging on others' rights, and the free market should not allow individuals or companies to infringe on the rights of others in the name of profit, even if those others are not yet even born.

One politically popular approach is cap and trade (carbon trading). Here, companies are issued the right to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gases. If they emit more, they have to purchase the right to do so from someone else. If they emit less (or if they remove carbon from the atmosphere), then they can sell the credits.

The problem with cap and trade is that it assumes people and companies have the inherent right to put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, impacting future generations around the globe. That would be like saying that, since there are 16,000 murders per year in this country, we are going to cap and trade permits to kill people. The permits will be issued proportionally to the number of murders you committed last year. If you kill more people next year, you will have to buy more permits from someone who came in under their cap. (Have no fear, each year we will cut the number of permits issued. By the year 2050 we will only be allowing 10,000 murders per year -- uh, subject to change based on input from organized crime's lobbyists.)

I've always thought that a carbon tax (actually a tax on any greenhouse gas emissions) is the ideologically best way to approach the problem. You charge a tax for any fossil fuel burned. It can be charged when the fossil fuels are mined, when they are burned, or any point along the supply line, but we would need to be consistent so they are charged exactly once.

You may ask, what about other countries? This will have no impact on China, India, or any other part of the world that may be contributing significantly to the problem.

I have two answers to that. First, we slap a tariff on all imported goods and services, proportional to the amount of greenhouse gases used to produce and ship to the U.S. If the producer can provide proof that they have an equivalent tax in their home country, this tariff will be waived. And second, if this program is successful, it can provide a model for other countries, and a useful tool in negotiating international agreements.

There's one more big problem with a carbon tax, and this is where I got stuck. Such a tax is highly regressive. The people who will suffer the most are those that already can't afford the gas to drive to work and the energy to heat their homes.

I pondered this last issue long and hard until I ran across this idea from Jim Hansen. Dr. James Hansen is none other than the scientist who first brought climate change to the attention of the U.S. Congress in the 1980s, and he continues to be active in the field.

Dr. Hansen suggests (actually demands) a carbon tax, but he adds a twist: 100% of the revenue of the tax is refunded immediately to the citizens. People would receive monthly direct deposits into their bank accounts. None of the received new tax money would be spent by the government. Instead the money would be divided equally among every man, woman and child.

How does that work? Say this new tax causes massive inflation (after all, the companies paying the tax will just pass it on to consumers). People might be paying $1,000 more per month for home heating, electricity, gasoline, and goods and services produced using these resources. But, the same people would be seeing the same $1,000 appear like magic, like clockwork every month.

If I'm a smart consumer, I'm going to figure out how to cut back on my energy usage and set aside some of that new money to make my home more energy efficient, or buy a plug-in hybrid, or any number of investments designed to allow me to live more efficiently and hence spend less money.

And, if I'm a smart business, I'm going to figure out how to get some of that new money. I'm going to start selling some of those energy-efficient products. And it won't be something goofy like carbon credits. Instead it will be something that will actually cause less greenhouse gas emission.

How much money are we talking about? Well, one estimate was that it would take an investment of about $100 per ton of carbon dioxide to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. Each person in the U.S. emits about 22 tons of CO2 per year. So, we're talking about new taxes (and new dividend checks) of about $200 per month per person, or $800 for a family of four. Most of the cost for the typical family, I assume, would be in the form of higher prices for energy, and for good and services produced using fossil fuels. That cost would be offset by direct deposit of an approximately equal amount each month.

Of course, we'd need a scientific panel to determine the correct amount of the new tax for each product or service, as this should not be a political decision. And we would likely want to phase this tax in over a small number of years.

Is this the best solution? I don't know. But it seems to me that we need to be thinking about radical ideas such as this, instead of relying on do-gooders, relying on the free market, or relying on the ability of politicians to solve this in a timely manner. Because a timely manner is the thing that is most important.

The Bush Tax Increase

One of John McCain's biggest campaign issues this election, and a favorite talking point among conservatives is the so-called Obama tax increase. But what I don't get is why they are blaming Obama, when it was their own man George W. Bush who signed the tax increase into law.

That's right. Our very own President Bush signed into law the tax plan that will result in taxes increasing after he leaves office. The only way he could make the budget math even sort of work was to put an end date on each of his tax cuts, expiration dates at which taxes would increase. Otherwise, the fiscal damage would have been even more obvious at the time and they never would have passed Congress.
And now the conservatives are blaming Obama for raising taxes even if he does nothing and lets some of the tax cuts expire. That's just plain dumb. George W. Bush and the Republican Congress are totally responsible for raising taxes.
So, Bush is a tax hiker. And we already know that John McCain is as well.
Barack Obama is proposing to follow the Bush tax plan -- letting the Bush tax cuts expire as Bush put into place. Meanwhile, John McCain has proposed a brand new tax (his tax on health care benefits). But don't worry, he tells us, it will only be a net increase on 5% of people, the people who can most afford it.

I smell hypocrisy here.

Whine E. Coyotes

One of the things I've noticed in this political season is how quick each side is to jump on the other. Like a pack of coyotes, they are looking for any sign of weakness. This pack mentality seems to start with the first sound bite, which then triggers the vicious little attacks. Nobody seems to think for himself, or question the selection of target; it's just assumed that the greater good of the pack depends on the common task of taking down the weakest target within the prey herd.

A few days ago, Sen. Joe Biden was talking to Katie Couric about the current economic problems. The VP hopeful said, "Part of what a leader does is to instill confidence, is demonstrate that he or she knows what they're talking about and communicates to people: if you listen to me and follow what I'm suggesting we can fix this. ... When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed. He said, 'look, here's what happened.'"

Lots of folks have jumped on the bash Biden bus, saying that not only was there no television in 1929, Roosevelt wasn't even President until 1933. Well, I've been reading about FDR and his Fireside Chats. It turns out that Joe Biden was more correct than most anybody has been willing to admit.

Roosevelt started his Fireside Chats in March and April of 1929, while he was governor of New York. The stock market had not yet crashed, but there was an agricultural depression in the state. In these and future talks, he picked a topic, explained the situation in plain, non-condescending language, encouraged nonpartisan efforts, put forth suggested solutions, and asked for public feedback.

FDR continued these talks through his governorship, and then reconstituted them when he was elected President. He continued these chats though 1944.

The records on exactly when his radio talks occurred as NY governor or what they covered are slim. But it is a matter of record that his very first Fireside Chat as President, which occurred on March 12, 1933, was on the topic of the bank crisis.

I found this interesting quote from a newspaper editorial after one of his talks in 1930, shortly before he was elected to his second term as governor:

If television were perfected, thousands who listened in last night ... would have seen their Governor seated comfortably behind his big desk in the Executive Mansion, flashing his characteristic smile with each sally, shaking his head for emphasis over a good point.... They would see him settling down into an earnest plea to "lend a hand" and his mouth set with determination.... Taking his radio audience into his confidence the Governor leans forward just a little to make a scathing jibe.... And turning away from the mike, the Governor gives a boyish smile of "that was a good one...." Slyly taking a quote from a Republican campaign speech, he pours a bit of polished satire into the "mike." Leaning back, straightening his broad shoulders ... and with the same grimly amused glint in his eyes and the same "well you understand how ridiculous it is" smile, the Governor pokes fun at his opponents for his unseen audience. Then he anticipates. He keeps the air still for a second. His eyes narrow and he launches an attack.... When the half hour is over and incidentally Governor Roosevelt is pleased as a boy when he hits the broadcast time nail exactly on the head, he settles back to talk in that same smooth musical voice radio listeners and critics have come to admire.

Those who are quick to join the pack in condemning a comment as a gaffe should first make sure they know the facts before jumping in.

Here's what I think: Won't it be nice to have a Vice President who is more likely to say too much than to keep every single thing secret, and who can smile rather than sneer at us?

The Good Deal -- A Parable

Your Flag Lapel Pin Won't Keep You in Office Anymore

While digesting Congressional Digest
In the airport bathroom stall,
With a tap a flag with a pin on the back
was kicked under the wall.
I peeled that flag up off the floor
And stuck on my lapel,
And if I could have old Betsy Ross
I'd tell 'em all to go to Hell!

But your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office anymore.
They're already overcrowded with liars, cheats and whores.
Now Jesus don't like hypocrisy, no matter what the reasons for,
And your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office any more.

I popped in the Senate this morning
And the lobbyist said to me:
Said, if you vote for my silly bridge
I'll give you ten of them flags for free (plus a boat).
Well, I didn't hestitate a bit,
I took him up on what he said.
And I stuck those flags all over my suit
And one on my wife's forehead.

But your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office anymore.
They're already overflowing with lyin', cheatin' whores.
Now Jesus don't like thievin', no matter what the reasons for,
And your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office any more.

Well, I got my suit lapel so filled
With flags I could not breathe.
So when I wiped my nose upon my shirt
I poked my eye out with my sleeve.
By the time they calmed the doctor down
I was already dead.
And I'll never understand why the man
Standin' at the Pearly Gate said:

That your flag lapel pin won't get you in heaven anymore.
We're already overcrowded from your 100-year-long war.
Now Jesus don't like killin', no matter what the reasons for.
And your flag lapel pin won't get you in heaven any more.

And your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office any more.

Any your flag lapel pin won't get out of China
Any
More

Pander to the People Right On

Last week we went to hear a band called The Panderers. They were pretty good, and between songs the band members would tell us how great our town, club, neighborhood, audience members, etc., were. Kind of funny.

However, it's not so funny when the people we elect do the same thing. I was reminded of this when I saw John McCain's latest health care "reform" proposal. It was as if the band had given everyone in the audience free t-shirts or CDs or drinks, and funded it through a mandatory ticket surcharge at the door.

Here's how McCain's plan would work. Somehow, without raising taxes, he is going to give everybody $2,500 (or $5,000 per family) to buy health insurance. I imagine this is going straight into our deficit, which means, of course, that it is coming out of my eventual Social Security and Medicare payments. That's it. Oh, yeah, he wants to "promote" lots of other feel-good stuff, like insurance for people with preexisting conditions, healthy lifestyles, convenience, and competition. Where's the meat?

Kind of like the recent stimulus package, which similarly took from our future financial stability to help people who can't control their spending to pay down their credit cards.

Or kind of like the proposals being floated around to have a "gas tax holiday" for the summer, encouraging people to drive even more while not fixing crumbling bridges.

Does this stuff actually work? Meaning, of course, are people more likely to vote for a politician who writes them checks, even though they must know that the money is coming out of the government's ability to provide some other service that the recipient is likely to continue to expect? It's sad, but I have no doubt that it does.

Maybe if the band had handed out free t-shirts to the audience members, and built the cost into the price of the CD we were expected to go out and buy because we appreciated the free t-shirt so much. That would be pandering like a pro.

McCain Plays to his Base and Tortures Constitution

I wrote earlier about the positions that the Democratic Presidential candidates had taken in support of requiring the Commander in Chief to follow the dictates of the U.S. Constitution. Although I haven't seen a specific response from Senator McCain, his recent statements give a sense of where he stands on some of the issues.

A few days ago the Senator from Arizona, who himself was tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, urged President Bush to veto a bill that would have made it clear that waterboarding and other torture techniques can't be used by the CIA. So, the presumptive Republican candidate thinks it important enough to play up the conservative base that he is willing to compromise his own principles and make this statement, claiming at the same time that it is consistent with his previous positions.

I'm sorry, John, but this doesn't bode well for your ability to convince independents that you truly think outside the Bush bubble.

So, how in the world did we get to the situation that the right to torture has become a liberal vs. conservative question? Isn't it obviously a question of common sense along with the guiding principles of the Constitution?

Well, one point in Sen. McCain's favor. He has promised not to follow the Bush lead of issuing signing statements on legislation he disagrees with and usurping the Constitutionally-granted powers of the legislative branch.

So now we know McCain's position on two of the ten issues on the Constitution-protection hot list. He's against torture but doesn't think that should be written into law. And he is against signing statements. Let's see if we can find out where he stands on the other eight points.