The Affordable Care Act

I urge you to watch the news and recall the quote from Nancy Pelosi:

"We'll have to pass the bill, in order to find out what is in it."

Default 1

I found several things interesting about the recent shutdown of the government – debt ceiling crisis.

As noted here some time ago, I am opposed to the debt ceiling.  I assume that it was a well intended proposal to hold down the growth of government or the debt.  The Congress and President pass laws without adequate funding and therefore, without admitting it, they raise the debt.  The debt ceiling is, I suppose, intended to lay in the background and control the growth of the debt. It doesn’t work.   Partly because the propaganda around holding fast to it is just too great.   Partly because the argument that when a bill is passed that itself suffices to raise the debt if the bill is not paid for in some other way.  What might work would be  to require that a newly passed bill must include a funding provision specifying how the bill will be paid for before it takes effect.  This would have to be done a)  regardless of actual cost or else they would just claim that it would cost very little and b) even if debt was the way it would be paid for.  This  wouldn’t hold down debt, but it would be more honest.

The ridiculous right with its attempt to delegitimize Obama – eg birthers - has now been joined by the lunatic left in its efforts to delegitimize the Tea Party with references to the Confederacy - Andrew Sullivan, Jesse Jackson, and Eleanor Clift.   Ms. Clift based it on seeing someone with a Confederate flag.  I do not recall hearing a similar response when immigration marchers waved Mexican flags some time back.  Bill Maher thinks Obama is so tentative in his governance because of a fear of assassination.   Before next year is over I expect that these four will view any opposition to Obama as simple racism.

The Current Language of Politics

Apparently I am not (in the last two entries) communicating well in the exchanges in the posts of Oct. 3 and Oct. 4.  Whether we continue them or not I want to try again to state what  I think about this and some things that I don’t think about this. 

1.  I am with the supporters of the ACA on the issue.  However, the Republican general position (smaller government) is a legitimate position and they have a right to use all legitimate methods to pursue it.  One is to use the rules of the House to prevent a vote on "the Senate Bill".  They can do that - and Obama can get on TV and say: "Just have a vote!" and make them look bad.

2.  I am offended by the tactics that my side (let’s call them the Ds) is using – in particular the name-calling.

As was noted in one of the posts "extortion  does have a definition": 

Extortion is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.  

Please note the word criminal.

3.  It seems to me to be particularly offensive to call the opponents (let’s call them the Rs) “extortionists” when the Rs are using the same tactics that the Ds have used in the past (when the Rs and Southern Ds held a majority in one body or the other of Congress).  This kind of hyperbolic language was not used.  You can say that it is because our politics was not so bitter then, and I will say sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between cause and effect.

4.  Since a basic principle of the ACA is that the government will “rob Peter to pay Paul” by forcing the payment of a fee or a tax or a premium by Peter. (I agree with C J John Roberts that a rose by any other name …)  The money will be used to provide “affordable” health care for Paul.  Does that sound like any criminal activity mentioned above?  I would agree that the operation of the ACA is technically not extortion.  But I agree only because it is the government which is doing it and it is done according to law.  Still, it seems to me to be spectacularly ironic for the Ds to say that the opponents of the ACA are engaging in – extortion.

5.  Consider the following two things in connection with Obama’s sudden adoration of “the law”.
1. a) About the ACA's health care individual mandate Obama says: “It’s the law we can’t delay that.”
b) About the ACA's health care employer mandate Obama says: “We are delaying that.”
2. About the “Dream Act” (which did not pass and change the immigration law) Obama said I’m not going to enforce that part of the immigration law. Poof

This is not a minor irrelevant discrepancy from out of the blue.  Obama makes 1.a)  the justification for calling the Rs extortionists.  Because “the ACA is the law and therefore I can’t negotiate about that”.  The other two are the evidence that he doesn’t take that argument seriously.

6.  I support the ACA and I think the Rs are messing up bad on this and that they will pay for it.  I think the arguments that can be brought to bear against their position are strong and persuasive.  Instead the Ds have chosen a type of name-calling that leaves their defenders making arguments like, “Well, I don’t really know what the president meant by that.”

I support Obama, but I am depressed about him. In general, I believe that we should not have to wonder what the President intended to say and, especially, the world should not have to wonder whether or not he meant it.

 

Presidential children

The President put some children behind him when he made his report on the Biden study about the killing of the children in Connecticutt.

For this or some other reason the NRA thought that they had been given an exemption from the rule about not using presidential children in the political discourse.  They proclaimed in an ad that the President was opposed to protecting your children with guns and yet he used guns (secret service) to protect his children!!

I think that they looked bad and the reason is that they tried to make the President look hypocritical which doesn't work because:  1.  All recent presidents have done the same thing and 2. there are clearly reasons why presidential children need more protecting than other children.

They would have done a lot better to have focused on the fact that all of those presidents, whatever they claim, recognize that guns are useful in protecting (their -1-18) children from the crazies.

Raising Taxes vs Contributing More Revenue

I just watched an interview with Paul Ryan.  He came across to me as intelligent, knowledgeable, handsome, great hair (I am jealous), with a talent for changing the meaning of the interviewers question with his answer.  This last characteristic seems to be a must with all successful politicians.

I have one question though that is bugging me.  He and Romney are very critical of the President’s proposal to raise tax rates on the wealthiest Americans because it raises rates on many “small businesses” (to be clear I am not in favor of it right now either, or any other plan that takes more money out of the economy).  Ryan described his and Romney’s plan as being much better because it lowers rates on everyone.  When pressed for exactly how this helps decrease the deficit he said that they planned to do away with some “loopholes” (also known as deductions) that benefit the wealthiest, by in large, and therefore they would be “contributing more revenue” than they are now.

Huh?  How is making the wealthy pay more by lowering rates but doing away with deductions that will result in the wealthy paying more tax superior to simply raising rates on those same wealthy resulting in them paying more tax.  Since they have refused to tell us, or even give us a hint, what deductions they are planning to do away with, it’s impossible to say if Ryan’s description is accurate or not.

But forgive me if I am suspicious.  Why would the wealthy be so enthusiastic about the Romney/Ryan plan, which will result in them paying more taxes through doing away with deductions, and at the same time be so adamantly against a plan that would result in them paying more taxes through a rise in the highest tax bracket rate?  That was the comparison that Ryan presented in the interview, as I understood it; lower rates with less deductions vs. higher rates, both resulting in increased taxes for the highest earners.  Until we know specifically what deductions are going to be done away with there is no way to compare bottom line results, a person’s tax bill under one plan vs. a person’s tax bill under the other plan.  I feel the old bait and switch coming on if they win the election.  The phrase “pig in a poke” comes to mind.

Please feel free to correct my understanding if my interpretation of the Romney/Ryan plan with regard to income taxes is incorrect.

Obama on business -2

On 7-16 I posted a quote from President Obama:    “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.”  Of course the president said some other things.  If I had known about the next sentence, (Somebody else made that happen.), I would have included it as well.  I don’t remember my source, but it was apparently not FoxNews since  Media Matters says that FoxNews added the second sentence and more in their presentation.

MM offered the following rendition. [my emphasis]
 OBAMA: “[L]ook, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that.   Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That's how we funded the GI Bill. That's how we created the middle class. That's how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That's how we invented the Internet. That's how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that's the reason I'm running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You're not on your own, we're in this together.”
End MM quote

Except for the two sentences (in red bold above) I would agree with everything that President Obama said.  In fact I would agree with variations of those two sentences as well.  For example:  If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that alone.  Somebody else made that happen a contribution to that. 

I have argued all of my adult life (which began at about age 35) that I have been very fortunate to be born in this time and place and that it would be silly for me to claim exclusive credit or moral superiority for what little I have achieved.  I have had help from many directions including the various governments.  Consequently, I have no quarrel with the state saying “good for you” and claiming a right to a significant part of what I have received for my work (incidentally, not in business) because they contributed to the environment.  On the other hand, I did do my part.  If I hadn’t worked at it, it wouldn’t have happened for me.

These two statements by the President go well beyond what is described in the previous paragraph and they also go well beyond what he was saying in the rest of his remarks. There is no reference here to the other things he said. 

If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.

Those two sentences stand completely alone in their meaning and their meaning is ominous.  They do not say that you ought to share credit for your accomplishments with the economic and political environment.  They say that you didn’t have anything to do with it.  The environment did it.  “Somebody else made that happen.”  In political and economic terms, what are the logical consequences of that? 

.

Obama on business

.
"If you've got a business, you didn't build that."   Barack Obama
.

Maxine Waters

It has been suggested to me that one the quotes on July 7, 2012 about peace and justice was an unfair characterization of MC Waters.  The quotes were:

July 7  “Peace and justice are two sides of the same coin.” Dwight D. Eisenhower
July 7  “No justice, no peace!”   A slogan attributed to Maxine Waters D of CA, a Congressional leader, which she used to incite the Rodney King riots in LA.

Upon reflection, perhaps I should have replaced the word "slogan" with the word "theme".
I do not remember the source.  But a short search revealed the following article from WSJ.  If you read it keep in mind that many of her comments were made in a very public venue while the riots were still going on.  That is the basis for the use of the word incitement.

'Riot Is the Voice of the Unheard'

Tea-party foe Maxine Waters once made excuses for real political violence.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303411604575168041790910582.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

I will not further characterize MC Waters beyond noting that (according to the story above) in the middle of the riots which included widespread looting she told the Washington Post that: "We have a moral responsibility to share the resources of this country."

What Walker's win would portend

It has been suggested that the Walker recall would discourage reforms such as those he has brought to Wisconsin.  For an alternate view of what a Walker win would mean check this National Review article.

Bain Capital

Should Romney's work at Bain Capital be a campaign issue?
Of course, he put it on the table.
Is it fair for Obama to talk only about the companies that failed after being picked up by Bain?
Of course not.  It is not his job to be fair it is his job to convince us that he would be better than Romney.

Is it fair for Romney to claim that these attacks by Obama are really attacks on capitalism?
Of course not.  It is not his job to be fair it is his job to convince us that he would be better than Obama.

Claiming that the other side has gone too far is just another way to avoid the issues.

Walker's run

.
It appears (as of now) that the recall of Wisconsin's Gov. Walker will fail, but that it will not necessarily be an endorsement of him and the Rs. Apparently surveys have shown that the people agree with a Milwaukee Sentinel editorial that it is not good to recall someone just for political reasons.  It is a refreshing editorial. They make it clear that they don't much like what he is doing, but they oppose recall on the principle above .

Since you have impeachment for criminal offences it may leave you, as it did me, a bit confused as to what the purpose of a recall statute is (if it is not to be used for political reasons).   Perhaps it is to cover the case (like this one) in which the official's party has a controlling majority of both houses and you are afraid that they wouldn't do their duty.
.

Two or three notes

.
Sorry I'm not getting much up lately I've been kind of sickly.

1. “The first job of a leader is to define reality.” – Max Depree
Are our candidates, including O, telling us about the hard times ahead or are they pandering to our wish that it be easy?
Have you heard anyone say that serious sacrifice is needed from the middle class (as well as the rich)?

2. Some potential irony. Wouldn't it be strange if the post-mortem of next year's election showed that Obama had beaten a weak republican candidate, and that the tea party was the reason that stronger candidates had fallen by the wayside? Meaning that the tea party had reelected him.
.

ALL OUT?

.
I just heard Senator John McCain describing the agreed to consequences of "failure" by the budget supercommittee as being "aspirational". That is, they might not do what they said they were going to do. That is, what was promised to get the debt ceiling increase approved was just another insincere promise.

I am moving closer and closer to believing that we should take everyone of these clowns that are up for reelection next year just vote them ALL OUT.
.

Perry's "Grand Bargain"

.
As you would expect his proposal is leaning to the right. But it is a "Grand Bargain" proposal. If somebody on the left would put one out there we would have a starting point.

Although he still has a long way to go he just improved his stock with me.
At least he is thinking big.
None of the others (including Obama) seems to be doing that.
.

The Republican debate 10-18-11

.
Long story short: Romney holds his own, Perry improves his performance and stays in the hunt,
Cain is, in Joel Sappenfield's description of one of my long ago chess moves, "preparing to lose".

Cain's 999 would shift the tax burden down the income scale.

He argues that it is not so because his whole program will eliminate a lot of hidden taxes that we are now paying, but don't know about. When presented with "studies that show" that it will raise taxes on the poor he says that people should do their own calculations and they will see. Hmmmmm I wanted to do my own calculations, but I had this very real problem: "How much do I save from not paying those hidden taxes that I don't know about?"

Next he will say that when he cuts those taxes on the producers, transporters, and retailers, then they are just naturally going to pass the savings onto us.

999

.
In the Oct 2 monthly candidate’s report I wrote that someone would turn the 999 upside down and connect it to the Biblical "mark of the beast". I was expecting that to come from a comic, but it was actually Michelle Bachman who sprang it on the world in the Tues., October 11 debate. Well maybe I wasn’t wrong about what the source would be.

So what about the 999? Well, it was funny watching David Gregory on Meet the Press attempting to “explain” to Cain that his 9% sales tax would come on top of state taxes!!! Apparently David thinks that the current federal taxes do not come on top of state taxes.

Seriously though, the idea of replacing a very progressive income tax, which almost half of the people do not even have to pay, with a flat rate sales tax is considerably more regressive than I would like to see us go for. Cain is apparently betting that he can sell this as an approach that does not shift the burden of taxation from one group to another. Perhaps Cain should be forgiven for believing this since the public accepts so much mythology these days. But I think that this is a fairy tale too far.

I expect that when people understand it better they will not like it either. But the people who really won’t like it (the left) will, I expect, never have the chance to vote for it.

Solyndra

.
The Solyndra loan is starting to look really bad.

The situation: The "green" company Solyndra got into financial trouble. The government gave them a loan guarantee of 500+ million dollars. The company went bankrupt anyway.

So far that looks a little bit like croney capitalism. But it will probably be alright. It was a big company and of course, in the bankruptcy, the government will have priority over the private parties who, after all, were being saved by the government loan guarantee. Right?

Wrong, it turns out that the agreement provided that: To get our money back the government has to get in line BEHIND the private people that the government had been trying to help!!
This is pretty bad.
.

A proposal for the Democrats

.
I received a blurb from Nancy Pelosi today. It seems that the Rs are trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare again and the Democrats have sworn to protect those "initiatives." (They just stay in that mode don't they. SS is 75 years old but she still refers to it as an initiative rather than a program. Presumably focus groups show that "program" does not poll well right now.)

Of course they were Democratic initiatives when they were begun and the Ds can properly take the credit for them (or blame if you see the world that way). I wonder if the following wouldn't be a better approach right now:

My Fellow Americans we have a problem with the financing of Medicare and to a lesser extent with Social Security. We are going to have to make some combinations of reduced services and increased revenues. What you have to decide is who do you want to trust to make those changes? The Democratic party which brought these programs into existence or the Republican party which has not been so supportive all along the way.
.

Elizabeth Warren

.
Ms. Warren has been a Law Professor at Harvard, the University of Texas, and elsewhere; was a member of the Obama Administration; and is currently a candidate for the US Senate from Massachusetts.

In a recent discussion she said
"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody."

Warren rejects the concept that it is possible for Americans to become wealthy in isolation.

"You built a factory out there? Good for you," she says. "But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did."

She continues: "Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."


This was brought to my attention by Gib.

For one presentation of the other side go here.
.

Never let a crisis go to waste.

.
It would appear that the Republicans have taken up Rahm Emmanuel's maxim that you should: Never let a crisis go to waste.

The current financial crisis was exploited by the Democrats to obtain the passage of Obamacare.
Now the Republicans are exploiting it to force cuts that they always wanted to make anyway.
.