Monday, September 14, 2009
Santorum Eyeing the White House
The Hill is reporting that former Pennsylvania Senator Rick 'Man-on-Dog' Santorum is thinking about running for President in 2012. Santorum was Sarah Palin before Sarah Palin was Sarah Palin. He's the guy that equated homosexuality to beastiality and pedophilia (I guess he was one of many). I don't think he will actually run. After all, he got beat in Pennsylvania, what makes him think he can win nationwide? However, I do worry that too many birthers, Birchers, and tenthers will enter the race (Palin, Santorum, etc) that they will split the base vote allowing an actually competitive moderate Republican to emerge. Of course, even the moderates are sounding like nut-jobs (case-in-point: Gov. Tim Pawlenty recently said that states should look into nullification via the 10th Amendment, only later to retract that statement). The only other Republican that you could imagine running would be former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney, and a divided base works perfectly for him, wondering if Mr. Santorum is eyeing a veep slot on the ticket.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Thoughts on the President's Health Insurance Reform Speech
The President can give one hell of a speech. No denying it, he's incredibly talented. The soaring oratory can sometimes crowd out the analysis, and a couple days on, distance can provide clarity.
1. The President did a good job sounding bipartisan. Now, given the current make up of the Senate and House, it's very unlikely that many, if any Republicans will sign on to whatever legislation makes it out of committee, so when I say he did a good job, I don't mean that it will actually make the bill BIPARTISAN. Like Ezra Klein has said, there is a new era of bipartisanship, one in which bipartisanship is mostly about posturing, and that's because the audience isn't in the Congress, it's the public. To maintain a winning coalition you must satisfy the need of the 'independents' for bipartisanship. That's hard considering the Republican caucus has decided that obstruction is their best political opportunity at present (and that's likely because all the 'accomidationists' lost to Democrats in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles). Sounding bipartisan is being bipartisan, and the President did a good job sounding bipartisan.
2. Still wondering why the public option isn't just, hey, anyone can buy into Medicare. People who have Medicare like it, a lot. So much so that they have convinced themselves that 'government' has nothing to do with it. Sure, you'd be called a 'socialist' but that's what you're called anyway. I've been trying to figure out if it would have made this process harder or easier, and I have no idea.
3. Why $900 Billion? Senator Baucus seemed to arbitrarily choose this to make his 'Gang of Six' work. That seems to have worked itself out as well as it could (it makes the President at least sound bipartisan, which, for the moment is all bipartisan can mean), so why stick to it. It was arbitrary in the first place. I mean that's what 'moderates' seem to be all about, arbitrarily cutting the price by 10%. Why does it matter if a DEFICIT NEUTRAL program is $1 trillion or $900 billion? Isn't what matters the effectiveness of the program?
4. The President offered up a concession to Republicans in the form a pilot program on tort reform limits. Limiting damages in law suits does not reduce health-care costs. Texas, not surprisingly, instituted the harshest limits in the US some years ago (2003 or 2004) and they are still leading the nation in health-care costs. There is no evidence that tort reform reduces health care costs.
5. I am curious about what kind of savings there would be through simply introducing a universal mandate and a highly regulated exchange system. Even instituting price controls, like defined benefit packages at a defined cost, maybe even a non-profit base level health insurance system supplemented by a for-profit additional benefit system (I think this is, more or less, how the Swiss do it). Could this bend the curve at all? Would it depend on how many people sign up for a basic plan (I imagine many would)? Of course, this would only affect 30 million folks who will enter the exchanges, the rest of us have our employer's purchasing power to use as leverage to lower insurance premiums.
More later...
1. The President did a good job sounding bipartisan. Now, given the current make up of the Senate and House, it's very unlikely that many, if any Republicans will sign on to whatever legislation makes it out of committee, so when I say he did a good job, I don't mean that it will actually make the bill BIPARTISAN. Like Ezra Klein has said, there is a new era of bipartisanship, one in which bipartisanship is mostly about posturing, and that's because the audience isn't in the Congress, it's the public. To maintain a winning coalition you must satisfy the need of the 'independents' for bipartisanship. That's hard considering the Republican caucus has decided that obstruction is their best political opportunity at present (and that's likely because all the 'accomidationists' lost to Democrats in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles). Sounding bipartisan is being bipartisan, and the President did a good job sounding bipartisan.
2. Still wondering why the public option isn't just, hey, anyone can buy into Medicare. People who have Medicare like it, a lot. So much so that they have convinced themselves that 'government' has nothing to do with it. Sure, you'd be called a 'socialist' but that's what you're called anyway. I've been trying to figure out if it would have made this process harder or easier, and I have no idea.
3. Why $900 Billion? Senator Baucus seemed to arbitrarily choose this to make his 'Gang of Six' work. That seems to have worked itself out as well as it could (it makes the President at least sound bipartisan, which, for the moment is all bipartisan can mean), so why stick to it. It was arbitrary in the first place. I mean that's what 'moderates' seem to be all about, arbitrarily cutting the price by 10%. Why does it matter if a DEFICIT NEUTRAL program is $1 trillion or $900 billion? Isn't what matters the effectiveness of the program?
4. The President offered up a concession to Republicans in the form a pilot program on tort reform limits. Limiting damages in law suits does not reduce health-care costs. Texas, not surprisingly, instituted the harshest limits in the US some years ago (2003 or 2004) and they are still leading the nation in health-care costs. There is no evidence that tort reform reduces health care costs.
5. I am curious about what kind of savings there would be through simply introducing a universal mandate and a highly regulated exchange system. Even instituting price controls, like defined benefit packages at a defined cost, maybe even a non-profit base level health insurance system supplemented by a for-profit additional benefit system (I think this is, more or less, how the Swiss do it). Could this bend the curve at all? Would it depend on how many people sign up for a basic plan (I imagine many would)? Of course, this would only affect 30 million folks who will enter the exchanges, the rest of us have our employer's purchasing power to use as leverage to lower insurance premiums.
More later...
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
The Hawks Have Flown the Coop
Spencer Ackerman wonders where have all the hawks gone, after Andrew Exum refused to be labeled a supporter of the war in Afghanistan on The News Hour.
The world seems turned on its head in just a few months. No more 'good war' and 'just war' and 'necessary war' talk. Guess that's what happens when you have a Democratic President running a war that only 30% of Dems support and 70% of Republicans support. Dems won't carry too much water on it, Republicans won't support a thing out of this White House, and no hawks to be found.
The world seems turned on its head in just a few months. No more 'good war' and 'just war' and 'necessary war' talk. Guess that's what happens when you have a Democratic President running a war that only 30% of Dems support and 70% of Republicans support. Dems won't carry too much water on it, Republicans won't support a thing out of this White House, and no hawks to be found.
Best Take-down of the Year?
Definitely the best post of the week, Kevin Drum takes down Mr. David 'strange amnesia' Brooks.
Japan's Election and Climate Reform
TNR has a report on the prospects for climate reform in Japan...
today's election in Japan will likely have big consequences for climate policy. The Democratic Party of Japan, which just pole-vaulted into power and basically ended 54 years of one-party rule, has promised to cut the country's emissions 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020—closer in line with what scientists are urging—as well as set up a cap-and-trade system for carbon...
Really?!
Smith-Cotton High School banned the band's tshirts because they were titled Brass Evolutions 2009. The reference to evolution didn't pass the crazy zealot parent test. Some complaints and the school banned the shirts.
The band debuted the T-shirts when it marched in the Missouri State Fair parade. Summers said he was surprised when he received a direct complaint after the parade.
While the shirts don’t directly violate the district’s dress code, Assistant Superintendent Brad Pollitt said complaints by parents made him take action.
“I made the decision to have the band members turn the shirts in after several concerned parents brought the shirts to my attention,” Pollitt said.
Pollitt said the district is required by law to remain neutral where religion is concerned.
“If the shirts had said ‘Brass Resurrections’ and had a picture of Jesus on the cross, we would have done the same thing,” he said.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
