Until the financial market collapse in October, the biggest issue in the 2008 presidential election was Iraq. Bush was The Devil™ who took us in and Obama was The Coward™ who would bring our troops home without victory. Rhetoric was heated hyperbole and exaggeration. It was bad.
Then Obama was elected. On Jan 21st, 2009, Obama used his first full day in office to talk to military and Iraqi experts for his big presidential war update. Obama said of the meeting, "I asked the military leadership to engage in additional planning necessary to execute a responsible military drawdown from Iraq." Drawdown is kind of a strange choice of words, but it demonstrates his resolve to leave Iraq acted upon on the very first day. He has acted to bring the troops home, just as he asked. Promise kept.
Perhaps more interesting is what he didn't do. He didn't spin around 180° and support a perpetual presence in Iraq as soon as he saw the confidential intelligence stuff that only Presidents see. He didn't call for troops to start being shipped home immediately and the war to be entirely declared a horrendous imperial mistake. It really was a moderate position: bring the troops home responsibly. Victory with honor in Iraq.
I like it. Fine, it's a little Nixonesque, but it's also a good thing to do. He has ended the "perpetual war" criticism of the USA (which would have been a smart trick for the Bush administration), but without actually scrapping the important work the troops are doing in Iraq (the same smart policy as the Bush administration clung to like a life raft).
Are troops actually coming home? In Feb., it was reported that "a substantial number of the 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq would be home within a year." Just yesterday it was reported that "The United States will withdraw about 4,000 troops from Iraq by the end of October[.]" Is 4000 a substantial number of 140,000? Maybe if he's been doing that every month without me noticing. Also, General McChrystal (commander of the troops in Afghanistan) wants a surge similar to the one in Iraq - more troops and a major strategic adaptation; even if the troops leave Iraq, they won't necessarily be going home.
Update: this article says there will be 120,000 troops in Iraq by the end of the month. Thus, 20,000 troops have left Iraq since Obama was elected. 16 to 17% probably qualifies as "significant". I don't know how many went to Afghanistan or will in the upcoming troop surge, but it's more effect than I gave credit for. General Odierno, who made the announcement, said Iraq was an enduring U.S. interest but that insurgent problems had reduced greatly in the past two years. If Iraq loses the stability we've gained in the past two years, that will be Obama's primary legacy.
Obama also announced he would "consult with the Joint Chiefs […] in order to develop a comprehensive policy for the entire region." I like hearing him treat Iraq and Afghanistan as two fronts of the same military endeavor. They are. It's nice to hear politicians besides the Bush White House say so.
I suspect his allies on the anti-war left will be criticizing Obama for the same thing I'm praising him for: his symbolic attempts to "end the war" are diffusing criticism, but results demonstrate he's trying to win the war first. It's a beautiful thing!
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Absolute Writer's Block Found Something
Here's a comment on high-end health plans ("Cadillac health plans"), taxes, and the economy generally. It's pretty interesting.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Obameter #119: The Domestic Abuse Czar
The promise: to ensure the federal government is doing all it can to prevent domestic violence by appointing a Presidential Adviser whose job will be to coordinate prevention policies and programs across all government agencies.
The action: Obama has appointed Lynn Rosenthal to be his adviser on violence against women. She served as the executive director of the New Mexico Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and before that as the executive director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence. There was a recent editorial on the subject from the New York Times.
The promise: kept.
The criticism: opponents of the choice claim that domestic abuse prevention policy has been distorted by feminists to include only violence against women (thus ignoring the plight of abused men). They claim that Rosenthal is a prime example of that anti-male distortion of the issue. This view is exemplified by this rebuttal by Examiner.com (not to be confused with the National Examiner, a supermarket tabloid). A single line from this source expresses this view well: "Ms Rosenthal is no advocate for women, rather she is only an advocate for the feminist political viewpoint regarding the issue."
The analysis: whether Lynn Rosenthal is a good choice for the position depends on which side of the political divide is actually right. Previous to this research, I had no opinion about who was right or wrong here; is there a politically-motivated distortion of the issue, or is the divide caused by ill-informed paranoia formed into a political faction? In an attempt to posit an answer, I'll critique the debate between these two sides with the NYT piece and a piece from the Washington Post representing the established system and the Examiner.com article and another from the Heritage Foundation representing the opposing view. All four of these articles are editorials and, thus, face lesser fact-checking before publication.
The frequency of domestic abuse assaults is cited by all four articles: NYT says domestic violence affects "as many as one in four women"; the Washington Post says "women experience about 4.8 million" assaults every year (that's about 1 ½%) ; Trudy Schuett writes "there is no evidence that 'one in four' women are affected" for Examiner.com; and while the Heritage Foundation doesn't address any specific statistic, they opine that such figures are "often exaggerated by [measuring] whether or not a woman has ever been abused in her lifetime rather than whether or not abuse is occurring within a current romantic relationship". They proceed to claim that "around 20 to 30 percent" as a current abuse rate is only accurate for the highest-risk demographic of "older mothers on welfare", not women generally.
Digging around in a CDC report, I found the estimates "1.9 million women [...] are physically assaulted" and "1.3 million women [...] are physically assaulted by an intimate partner" annually. I don't know whether those groups overlap (I only read the 3 page Executive Summary, not the full 71 page report), but even if they don't it's still 3.2 million per year -- far too many, but significantly less than the 4.8 million claimed by the Post. They could both be telling the truth, though; maybe the Post's definitions are simply more inclusive, perhaps including unfulfilled threats of harm or estimating unreported violence.
I also side with the Heritage's point that lifetime figures do not accurately depict the current state of domestic violence. Overall, it does look like a little exaggeration for effect has wiggled it's way into the popularly cited statistics.
The Examiner piece claims that the fact the announcement "was relegated to the Vice President" shows disinterest in the issue from the Obama Administration. All evidence suggests, however, that domestic violence is a Biden pet issue. It makes sense for him to make the announcement given his deeper interest in the topic. The critics aren't impeccable with their judgments, either.
Lynn Rosenthal was once the executive director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV). Ms. Schuett criticizes that organization for "promot[ing] the questionable 'solution' of divorce as the only approach" to domestic violence. By my judgment, a physical assault from a spouse completely justifies the victim's choice to divorce. If Ms. Schuett is advocating that victims stay in abusive relationships she is clearly wrong.
But that's not clearly what she is doing. The Heritage source describes a "Healthy Marriage Initiative" that would teach young and especially at-risk couples how to create a healthy, successful marriage as a preventative measure against domestic violence. That is an alternative to both divorce and endurance of violence. This program has it's own grounds for criticism, the most obvious to me being the worry of increased government involvement in people's marriages and romantic relationships. And, just like the "more status quo" side of the issue, they have counter-arguments to these criticisms. Heritage says "participation in marriage programs will be voluntary; no one will be 'coerced' to participate."
It does seem that domestic violence against men is being largely ignored, both by Obama's appointment and by the established philosophy more generally. But every source I've found says that, statistically, men suffer from fewer instances of domestic violence and less harm per instance. It's not unreasonable to focus on the worst part of the problem with more emphasis.
It seems to me that the Examiner.com article degrades into politically partisan attacks after that, seemingly throwing every criticism she can think of against the wall to see what sticks. The Heritage proposal is more interesting to me, as it is both a positive construction of what should be done (rather than what should not) and because it is more calm, rational, and methodical in it's advocacy. In fact, the more I read the article the more I support it's advocated plan. It sounds like a great idea!
I'm going to cut this a little short - it's late and I'm sleepy. If the Obama administration is appointing Rosenthal as an alternative to Trudy Schuett's "do nothing" approach, I applaud the choice. If Ms. Rosenthal is being offered as an alternative to the philosophy and policies offered in the Heritage article, I believe a strong opportunity has been lost, perhaps even to political partisanship as has been alleged.
It is not which side you support that makes you right or wrong, but the quality of the argument you support. Of the four articles, the Heritage Foundation offers the best argument (though I would like to read a similarly well reasoned rebuttal from feminist or administration sources). Obama's heart is in the right place, but I doubt Rosenthal and her new position can make the existing philosophy and policy work better than it has ever worked. A more complete approach, such as combining the kinds of prevention programs the Heritage Foundation describes with the crisis handling of Rosenthal's specialty, would presumably work better than doing more of the same thing.
I think Obama missed an opportunity to both effectively curtail domestic violence and reach across the aisle with his choice. It's a shame, but it's only a little shame. He could've done a lot worse.
The action: Obama has appointed Lynn Rosenthal to be his adviser on violence against women. She served as the executive director of the New Mexico Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and before that as the executive director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence. There was a recent editorial on the subject from the New York Times.
The promise: kept.
The criticism: opponents of the choice claim that domestic abuse prevention policy has been distorted by feminists to include only violence against women (thus ignoring the plight of abused men). They claim that Rosenthal is a prime example of that anti-male distortion of the issue. This view is exemplified by this rebuttal by Examiner.com (not to be confused with the National Examiner, a supermarket tabloid). A single line from this source expresses this view well: "Ms Rosenthal is no advocate for women, rather she is only an advocate for the feminist political viewpoint regarding the issue."
The analysis: whether Lynn Rosenthal is a good choice for the position depends on which side of the political divide is actually right. Previous to this research, I had no opinion about who was right or wrong here; is there a politically-motivated distortion of the issue, or is the divide caused by ill-informed paranoia formed into a political faction? In an attempt to posit an answer, I'll critique the debate between these two sides with the NYT piece and a piece from the Washington Post representing the established system and the Examiner.com article and another from the Heritage Foundation representing the opposing view. All four of these articles are editorials and, thus, face lesser fact-checking before publication.
The frequency of domestic abuse assaults is cited by all four articles: NYT says domestic violence affects "as many as one in four women"; the Washington Post says "women experience about 4.8 million" assaults every year (that's about 1 ½%) ; Trudy Schuett writes "there is no evidence that 'one in four' women are affected" for Examiner.com; and while the Heritage Foundation doesn't address any specific statistic, they opine that such figures are "often exaggerated by [measuring] whether or not a woman has ever been abused in her lifetime rather than whether or not abuse is occurring within a current romantic relationship". They proceed to claim that "around 20 to 30 percent" as a current abuse rate is only accurate for the highest-risk demographic of "older mothers on welfare", not women generally.
Digging around in a CDC report, I found the estimates "1.9 million women [...] are physically assaulted" and "1.3 million women [...] are physically assaulted by an intimate partner" annually. I don't know whether those groups overlap (I only read the 3 page Executive Summary, not the full 71 page report), but even if they don't it's still 3.2 million per year -- far too many, but significantly less than the 4.8 million claimed by the Post. They could both be telling the truth, though; maybe the Post's definitions are simply more inclusive, perhaps including unfulfilled threats of harm or estimating unreported violence.
I also side with the Heritage's point that lifetime figures do not accurately depict the current state of domestic violence. Overall, it does look like a little exaggeration for effect has wiggled it's way into the popularly cited statistics.
The Examiner piece claims that the fact the announcement "was relegated to the Vice President" shows disinterest in the issue from the Obama Administration. All evidence suggests, however, that domestic violence is a Biden pet issue. It makes sense for him to make the announcement given his deeper interest in the topic. The critics aren't impeccable with their judgments, either.
Lynn Rosenthal was once the executive director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV). Ms. Schuett criticizes that organization for "promot[ing] the questionable 'solution' of divorce as the only approach" to domestic violence. By my judgment, a physical assault from a spouse completely justifies the victim's choice to divorce. If Ms. Schuett is advocating that victims stay in abusive relationships she is clearly wrong.
But that's not clearly what she is doing. The Heritage source describes a "Healthy Marriage Initiative" that would teach young and especially at-risk couples how to create a healthy, successful marriage as a preventative measure against domestic violence. That is an alternative to both divorce and endurance of violence. This program has it's own grounds for criticism, the most obvious to me being the worry of increased government involvement in people's marriages and romantic relationships. And, just like the "more status quo" side of the issue, they have counter-arguments to these criticisms. Heritage says "participation in marriage programs will be voluntary; no one will be 'coerced' to participate."
It does seem that domestic violence against men is being largely ignored, both by Obama's appointment and by the established philosophy more generally. But every source I've found says that, statistically, men suffer from fewer instances of domestic violence and less harm per instance. It's not unreasonable to focus on the worst part of the problem with more emphasis.
It seems to me that the Examiner.com article degrades into politically partisan attacks after that, seemingly throwing every criticism she can think of against the wall to see what sticks. The Heritage proposal is more interesting to me, as it is both a positive construction of what should be done (rather than what should not) and because it is more calm, rational, and methodical in it's advocacy. In fact, the more I read the article the more I support it's advocated plan. It sounds like a great idea!
I'm going to cut this a little short - it's late and I'm sleepy. If the Obama administration is appointing Rosenthal as an alternative to Trudy Schuett's "do nothing" approach, I applaud the choice. If Ms. Rosenthal is being offered as an alternative to the philosophy and policies offered in the Heritage article, I believe a strong opportunity has been lost, perhaps even to political partisanship as has been alleged.
It is not which side you support that makes you right or wrong, but the quality of the argument you support. Of the four articles, the Heritage Foundation offers the best argument (though I would like to read a similarly well reasoned rebuttal from feminist or administration sources). Obama's heart is in the right place, but I doubt Rosenthal and her new position can make the existing philosophy and policy work better than it has ever worked. A more complete approach, such as combining the kinds of prevention programs the Heritage Foundation describes with the crisis handling of Rosenthal's specialty, would presumably work better than doing more of the same thing.
I think Obama missed an opportunity to both effectively curtail domestic violence and reach across the aisle with his choice. It's a shame, but it's only a little shame. He could've done a lot worse.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
I Like Movies
It occurred to me yesterday, after watching three DVDs in a row, that I really like movies. (They were The Last StarFighter, Knowing, and Iron Will. I recommend them all., three stars each.) I have around 200 movies and seasons of TV shows in my house. I have seen them all with three exceptions:
Pretty much the only genre of movies I don't like are ones set up as filmed stage plays. Grease, Hair, Rent, modern takes on Shakespeare, etc. That whole genre irks me. Second most hated is the genre of stupid comedies, like Shallow Hal or Scary Movie, especially if they're stupidly oversexed.
My favorite genres are historical dramas (John Adams, Pride & Prejudice, Fat Man & Little Boy, etc) followed by hard science fiction (The Man From Earth), followed by popcorn sci fi (Star Wars, Star Trek, Serenity).
I'm generally opposed to rampant sex, violence, or language, so I generally steer clear of movies rated R or worse. I will make occasional exceptions, most obviously for The Matrix. Which ruled. There are no sequels. None. Ever.
I love animation in both it's Disney-ish and Anime forms. Animation is capable of greater emotional power and persuasive influence than live action, especially in showing beauty and mystery. Pixar is the best production company ever, largely because they understand and wield that power.
In general, I love movies.
- I haven't seen all of 8 Seconds because I hate it.
- I haven't seen all of Grease (at least not in one sitting) because I hate it.
- I haven't seen Footloose because I fear it's going to remind me of Grease.
Pretty much the only genre of movies I don't like are ones set up as filmed stage plays. Grease, Hair, Rent, modern takes on Shakespeare, etc. That whole genre irks me. Second most hated is the genre of stupid comedies, like Shallow Hal or Scary Movie, especially if they're stupidly oversexed.
My favorite genres are historical dramas (John Adams, Pride & Prejudice, Fat Man & Little Boy, etc) followed by hard science fiction (The Man From Earth), followed by popcorn sci fi (Star Wars, Star Trek, Serenity).
I'm generally opposed to rampant sex, violence, or language, so I generally steer clear of movies rated R or worse. I will make occasional exceptions, most obviously for The Matrix. Which ruled. There are no sequels. None. Ever.
I love animation in both it's Disney-ish and Anime forms. Animation is capable of greater emotional power and persuasive influence than live action, especially in showing beauty and mystery. Pixar is the best production company ever, largely because they understand and wield that power.
In general, I love movies.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Obameter #77: Fund Community-Based Prevention
I'm sick of describing health care. My view boils down to a single point: American health care is generally better, if you can get it. Our system specializes on specialization at the expense of universal insurance. So many countries have universal health care, so everyone can get B+ medical care but A+ care remains elusive. We could do the same. But why should we?
Expanded funding for that kind of broad, general care was promised by Barack Obama and $851 million to that effect was announced by Michelle Obama. The Obama Administration is very successfully pursuing the health care reforms he believes in and I oppose.
It has become redundant to say so.
I need a new perspective on the issue. I need to think about it in a new way. To that end, I present a rebuttal to the Green Party's argument in favor of universal health coverage.
The way in which this is socialism is that it cuts off the peaks of the mountains to raise lower elevations. It raises the worse case by sacrificing the best case. The American spirit is an aspiration to achieve the best case - or, preferably, to create an even better best case. To remove the best possible outcome from possibility is unAmerican. That is why we are the only industrialized nation without universal health care. We associate ourselves with the best possible outcome. Thus, eliminate the best possible outcome is to hurt ourselves.
Expanded funding for that kind of broad, general care was promised by Barack Obama and $851 million to that effect was announced by Michelle Obama. The Obama Administration is very successfully pursuing the health care reforms he believes in and I oppose.
It has become redundant to say so.
I need a new perspective on the issue. I need to think about it in a new way. To that end, I present a rebuttal to the Green Party's argument in favor of universal health coverage.
- They argue that the United States is the only industrialized nation that does not consider health care a right. That's true, and logically correct. Rights are things government cannot do to you. Government cannot restrict your associations or self-expression, take your property, punish you without a trial... those are rights. Health care is done for you. It is a service, not a right.
- They argue that the US health care system is not the best in the world because American health is low. That is because people are not using the system. Individual patients of the American health care system achieve better health than patients of other health care systems. By that measure, the American system is the best health care system in the world.
- American health care is more expensive than that elsewhere in the world. Of course it is. Most health care elsewhere is general care. Most health care in the USA is specialist care. Specialist care is more expensive than general care. It's also more effective.
- The American system denies people service based on their ability to pay. Universal health care denies people services based on limited availability of specialist services. We have the "oversupply" of equipment stated because of the redundancies of competitive industry. If you remove that cause, we will face the same limited supply of specialist services that other nations face.
- They argue that no laws, rules, or regulations would limit choice of health care provider under a universal care system. This is true. Scarcity, not rules, would dictate availability. The rest of their arguments in this section are against corporate restrictions on health care, which I oppose just as much as I oppose government restrictions on health insurance. You get more choice when you pay for it yourself.
- They argue that universal health care is not "socialized medicine" because the government is only paying for the health care, not providing it. This is true. It's socialized medical insurance. They also mention that approximately 2/3rds of people support universal coverage. Speaking of rights, why force a system onto the other third that they don't want? Individual states can already provide universal medical coverage at the state level, leaving people the choice of whether to pay for it by choosing what state they live in.
- In arguing that the American system is not being reformed, they compare for-profit and not-for-profit medical care prices. What does that have to do with government handling of payments? Apart from that, this just repeats the third point about costs: American health care is more expensive and more effective at the cost of availability.
- They blame corporate lobbies for health care not passing. Why would corporations oppose it generally? It transfers the costs of health insurance from them to government. Medical corporations lobby against universal care to save themselves. They also fund most of the world's medical technology research and development. Maybe it's a good thing they exist.
The way in which this is socialism is that it cuts off the peaks of the mountains to raise lower elevations. It raises the worse case by sacrificing the best case. The American spirit is an aspiration to achieve the best case - or, preferably, to create an even better best case. To remove the best possible outcome from possibility is unAmerican. That is why we are the only industrialized nation without universal health care. We associate ourselves with the best possible outcome. Thus, eliminate the best possible outcome is to hurt ourselves.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Comparing Apples to Apples in Health Care
In the modern health care debate, it is extremely tempting to compare the American system as it exists now to foreign systems that resemble to degrees the universal health care system currently before the American legislature. It's quite a rational way to estimate the influence this new legislation would have if passed.
The most common comparison along these lines is life expectancy. That comparison is not rational at all. Medical care availability, it's effectiveness, and that of medical insurance affects life expectancy in ways deeply clouded by causes of death that cannot possibly be altered by medical attention. Americans drive more and further than citizens of other nations, increasing our vehicular accidents and, thus, on-the-scene deaths from that cause. We have radically more firearm deaths to the same effect. We are culturally more likely to try to personally, physically stop violent crime or armed robbery, which again decreases our life expectancy in ways unrelated to medical insurance, care, and science.
How do we measure up on direct comparisons of specific causes of death? That is a far better comparison of effectiveness of medical care. Of 100 patients for a given disease, what percentage are alive one year, five years, ten years later? That is a level scale.
So how do we compare? There are thousands of causes of death that could potentially be covered, and information for uncommon approach is less readily available. The full answer is beyond the scope of a blog post and of my own capability as a researcher. But I'll address what few examples I have found.
Of 31 countries statistically analyzed by one recent CDC-funded study (as reported by WebMD, for those without subscriptions to medical research websites), the U.S. has the highest 5-year survival rate for breast and prostate cancer. France and Japan beat us out for the other two cancer types covered, colon and rectal cancers.
If this factor alone were all to consider, it would put the USA tied or ahead of both France and Japan. World Health Organization declared France to have the best health care system in the world [source]. By the same WHO source, Japan ranked 6th and the USA ranked 37th.Already, conflict arises. According to Wikipedia, "The WHO [...] placed heavy emphasis on the health disparities between rich and poor, funding for the health care needs of the poor, and the extent to which a country was reaching the potential health care outcomes they believed were possible for that nation." [source] Thus, theirs is more a measure of whether health care is universal than whether it is effective.
The USA also leads the world in gunshot wound survival rates. With all our extra practice, does anyone doubt that claim? The effect on life expectancy would be neutralized by our far greater frequency of occurrence of gunshot wounds, yet it testifies of the effectiveness of our medical capability.
According to Wikipedia's coverage of a international cardiac study, "Canadian patients [...] had a 17% higher risk of dying from heart attacks than did U.S. patients." It is further suggested that that the American culture of cardiac treatment is more effective at saving heart attack victims' lives because of "the greater use of invasive procedures in the U.S." and that "specialized procedures are only available in central hospitals" in Canada but are more abundant in the USA. This suggests that more advanced care is less available under a universal health care system, and that the difference is responsible for a significant number of people's lives. [source]
(If I have not said so previously, let me say so now: I don't believe universal health care creates "death panels" who decide whether you live or die, but rather that financial realities will create shortages of certain advanced and expensive care options. Previously I considered some hospital accountant encouraging against certain procedures, but after reading the previous example my views are altered to say "Exactly like that.")
Of course,two three examples are insufficient to prove anything. My argument is limited by the comparative difficulty of coming up with comparisons of various nations by cause of death. But the approach is better logic and, so far, seemingly puts the existing US heath care system in a far better light. How sure are we that our health care system is so horribly behind the other industrialized nations of the world?
If we can't be sure it's broken, why are we striving to fix it?
Updated at 11:45 am on 24 Sept 2009.
The most common comparison along these lines is life expectancy. That comparison is not rational at all. Medical care availability, it's effectiveness, and that of medical insurance affects life expectancy in ways deeply clouded by causes of death that cannot possibly be altered by medical attention. Americans drive more and further than citizens of other nations, increasing our vehicular accidents and, thus, on-the-scene deaths from that cause. We have radically more firearm deaths to the same effect. We are culturally more likely to try to personally, physically stop violent crime or armed robbery, which again decreases our life expectancy in ways unrelated to medical insurance, care, and science.
How do we measure up on direct comparisons of specific causes of death? That is a far better comparison of effectiveness of medical care. Of 100 patients for a given disease, what percentage are alive one year, five years, ten years later? That is a level scale.
So how do we compare? There are thousands of causes of death that could potentially be covered, and information for uncommon approach is less readily available. The full answer is beyond the scope of a blog post and of my own capability as a researcher. But I'll address what few examples I have found.
Of 31 countries statistically analyzed by one recent CDC-funded study (as reported by WebMD, for those without subscriptions to medical research websites), the U.S. has the highest 5-year survival rate for breast and prostate cancer. France and Japan beat us out for the other two cancer types covered, colon and rectal cancers.
If this factor alone were all to consider, it would put the USA tied or ahead of both France and Japan. World Health Organization declared France to have the best health care system in the world [source]. By the same WHO source, Japan ranked 6th and the USA ranked 37th.
The USA also leads the world in gunshot wound survival rates. With all our extra practice, does anyone doubt that claim? The effect on life expectancy would be neutralized by our far greater frequency of occurrence of gunshot wounds, yet it testifies of the effectiveness of our medical capability.
According to Wikipedia's coverage of a international cardiac study, "Canadian patients [...] had a 17% higher risk of dying from heart attacks than did U.S. patients." It is further suggested that that the American culture of cardiac treatment is more effective at saving heart attack victims' lives because of "the greater use of invasive procedures in the U.S." and that "specialized procedures are only available in central hospitals" in Canada but are more abundant in the USA. This suggests that more advanced care is less available under a universal health care system, and that the difference is responsible for a significant number of people's lives. [source]
(If I have not said so previously, let me say so now: I don't believe universal health care creates "death panels" who decide whether you live or die, but rather that financial realities will create shortages of certain advanced and expensive care options. Previously I considered some hospital accountant encouraging against certain procedures, but after reading the previous example my views are altered to say "Exactly like that.")
Of course,
If we can't be sure it's broken, why are we striving to fix it?
Updated at 11:45 am on 24 Sept 2009.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Obameter #76: Fund Health Care Training
Obama promised to expand the financial support government provides for the training of health care personnel. In the big stimulus bill, he did so to the tune of $500 million. Promise kept.
I am completely unfamiliar with any political issue surrounding this promise or it's fulfillment. Were health care personnel previously under-trained? Did they need that money? Was it enough? Was it too much? Is there any mechanism in place to make sure it's going to the right people and making a difference? It seems to come completely out of the blue.
It's one of the approximately 140 independent items passed as one huge, joint program above and beyond the usual government spending budget in the huge omnibus American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, unofficially called the Stimulus Bill. One criticism of the big stimulus bill is that you could hide entire programs in the bill and no one would even find and address them before they became law. No oversight. No debate.
I'd say this is a perfect example. It sounds good, sure. Who wants untrained medical personnel? I suppose it's part of a greater emphasis on health in America, but I wasn't aware of any major lack of training problem in the medical field or that this spending has or will actually improve American health. Wikipedia has 6 words on the topic. Google News has seemingly no related search results. Have you heard anything about it? Has there been any debate, consideration, or discussion of this point at all?
I guess it was slipped in completely under the radar. I wonder what else passed that no one noticed.
I am completely unfamiliar with any political issue surrounding this promise or it's fulfillment. Were health care personnel previously under-trained? Did they need that money? Was it enough? Was it too much? Is there any mechanism in place to make sure it's going to the right people and making a difference? It seems to come completely out of the blue.
It's one of the approximately 140 independent items passed as one huge, joint program above and beyond the usual government spending budget in the huge omnibus American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, unofficially called the Stimulus Bill. One criticism of the big stimulus bill is that you could hide entire programs in the bill and no one would even find and address them before they became law. No oversight. No debate.
I'd say this is a perfect example. It sounds good, sure. Who wants untrained medical personnel? I suppose it's part of a greater emphasis on health in America, but I wasn't aware of any major lack of training problem in the medical field or that this spending has or will actually improve American health. Wikipedia has 6 words on the topic. Google News has seemingly no related search results. Have you heard anything about it? Has there been any debate, consideration, or discussion of this point at all?
I guess it was slipped in completely under the radar. I wonder what else passed that no one noticed.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Amazing Grace (2006)
William Wilberforce, member of the British Parliament, has been unsuccessfully opposing the slave trade for 15 years. The interest to the economy is too great for Parliament to relent, but morality and Wilberforce's health demand he continue to expose the horrors and inhumanity of the trade to criticism and scrutiny. But his health and faith are failing, and in the tide of the American and French Revolutions any criticism of British policy is sedition. Will stubborn minds or his own health break first?
Obviously he gets the bill passed. Otherwise, what a lousy movie it would be! But it is a beautiful story of a pivotal moment in history. It is much like the movies Luther and Hero in that respect, a fantastic story from the past brilliantly portrayed on screen. It is, frankly, my favorite genre of film.
Obviously he gets the bill passed. Otherwise, what a lousy movie it would be! But it is a beautiful story of a pivotal moment in history. It is much like the movies Luther and Hero in that respect, a fantastic story from the past brilliantly portrayed on screen. It is, frankly, my favorite genre of film.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Obameter #58: Expand SCHIP
After the failure of the Clinton health care plan of 1993, First Lady Hillary Clinton was looking for a smaller health care plan that would be more acceptable to Republicans and, thus, could potentially be passed into law. Specifically, she wanted a program to insure children whose families were only barely ineligible for Medicare. At the same time, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) was looking to expand his home state's children's health care plan to a national scale, paying for it with an increase in cigarette taxes. Having convinced his friend from the other side of the aisle, Orrin Hatch (R-UT), to co-sponsor the bill (something which conservatives nationally wouldn't forgive him for until his adamant defense of Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts in 2005).
One criticism of the bill at the time was that such a steep cigarette tax increase (from 23¢ per pack to 67¢) would reduce sales to the point where no revenue would actually be produced to offset the $24 billion cost of the bill. Orrin Hatch responded, "If we can keep people healthy and stop them from dying, I think most Americans would say 'Amen; isn't that a great result?' If fewer people smoke, states will save far more in lower health costs than they will lose in revenues from the cigarette tax." Then Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) argued against it, calling it a "big government program" and claiming it did not qualify under the Balanced Budget agreement between the Senate and the White House. Then-President Bill Clinton, who was responsible for compliance to the balanced budget agreement, called up many Senators to personally dissuade them from voting for the bill. On May 22nd, the bill failed in a vote of 55 to 45.
Senator Kennedy considered it a personal betrayal by a White House that cared more about the tobacco lobby than children's health. He and Hatch proposed the bill again a month later, this time as an amendment to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and with Hillary Clinton advocating for it in the White House. This time it passed. It passed in the House of Representatives easily, along party lines, and with relatively little drama.
The program was named "the State Children's Health Insurance Program" (abbreviated SCHIP or sometimes CHIP), and works by giving federal funds and a loose template for regulation of the program to states, who then apply the money to health insurance for children who might otherwise be uninsured or underinsured. Though originally aimed at children in families who were had only barely enough income to disqualify them for Medicare, some states have been given exceptions allowing dual coverage by Medicare and SCHIP.
Researchers from Brigham Young University (from Orrin Hatch's home state) and Aizona State University found that children removed from SCHIP tended to cost their states more money due to their care taking place as expensive emergency care rather than relatively cheap preventative care. Researchers from the Congressional Budget Office and the libertarian Cato Institute show that approximately half of children covered by SCHIP moved there from private insurance coverage -- in other words, that the program is "crowding out" private insurance coverage as much as it is covering the uninsured. Also, the expected ten-year cost of $24 billion ballooned to an actual cost of $40 billion.
After the 2006 election, the Democrats jumped to a near-2/3rds majority in both the House and Senate, just shy of what is necessary to override a Presidential Veto. Given their new-found influence, they sought to expand and extend the SCHIP program. In the Senate, they passed a bill intended to increase the planned $25 billion 5-year cost to $60 billion and loosen the federal restrictions on State implementation of the program. In the House they also voted to extend $6.5 billion in Medicare coverage to illegal immigrants. George W. Bush vetoed this SCHIP expansion, saying he opposed centralized, "federalized health care" on principle. Though some Republicans voted to override the President's veto, the overall vote was 13 votes shy and the veto was final.
Within a week, Democrats proposed the plan again, claiming they had improved the restrictions to keep the wealthy and non-citizens from gaining coverage. Bush vetoed it again, and the attempt to override his veto again failed.
By December 21, 2007 the Democrats had managed to find a sufficiently weakened extension of SCHIP that President Bush was willing to sign it into law. Rather than five years of an expanded program, it simply extended the existing plan until March of 2009. Essentially, it was an agreement to put off the question of SCHIP expansion until after the next election.
After Obama's election and the Democrat legislative gains of 2008, the issue was brought up once again. This time, the Democrats proposed to spend $32.8 billion (rather than $35 billion) and raise taxes on a variety of tobacco products to pay for it. 4 million more children are expected to be covered than under the old plan
The drama of the story is more interesting to me than the pros and cons of the policy itself, especially early on when it pitted Orrin Hatch against Trent Lott and Ted Kennedy against Bill Clinton. That was high drama, and I always favor the dissolution of party loyalty in favor of personal ideology. But the policy falls back on the usual, boring issues of government health insurance, "sin taxes", and Washington's complete disregard for budget balancing in name or spirit.
Each individual point is easy. I support healthy children. I oppose government insurance plans. I prefer state implementation over centralized, national programs. I oppose sin taxes, but not so much as I oppose most other forms of taxation. And the lack of balanced budgeting in Washington is the biggest, most publicly harmful disgrace in politics today.
Beyond all that, my greatest criticism is the great casino of health insurance. Public option, private option, however you slice it the design of health insurance is inherently a scam, a black hole which sucks away money from everyone.
Okay, I need to back up. That's a hugely controversial claim that needs better explication than that.
In a world without health insurance of any kind, a person like me would either save money or not and, in a medical emergency, would either be able to pay or not. Thus they would either live or not. It's a harsh world. People live or die based on how much money they have, or how much they can borrow or beg from banks, friends, and family. It's not a world I especially like.
The basis of medical insurance comes from people seeing the harshness of this world and seeking relief from it. Thus, they set up small, local groups dedicated to taking small, voluntary donations from many people to create a fund from which they can pay for emergency medical care. Ten people each give $10 a month to a central fund so that, on their 5th anniversary, they can pay $60,000 for heart bypass surgery for one of them. Ten people just paid for one person's life. That's fine, they're all friends and they feel heroic to be able to save their friend. It's a good thing for everyone.
It works so well, in fact, that big thinkers decide to do the same thing on a bigger scale. They establish charities, corporations, or government programs to provide such peace of mind to a great many people.
Voluntary donations to charities work great - people expect their money to help the unhealthy, and don't much care whether they personally benefit or not. They likely won't personally witness the results of their donations and, thus, won't be as willing to donate. But it works. It's worst fault is a tendency toward the impersonal, including the possibility that your money will go to help someone you wouldn't personally approve of helping. But that's pretty minor, espeically when compared the next few options.
Payments to Insurance Corporations are expected to pay for themselves, which pits customer and provider inherently against each other in a zero-sum game: either the company survives because the customers lose money, or the company goes bankrupt. Any insurance company that still exists gets more than it loses and, thus, it's customers lose more than they get. If that means they charge too much, or reject claims they should approve, or whatever means it takes the company will try to be profitable which is necessarily at the customers' expense. It's Las Vegas Insurance: the house always wins. But who knows? Maybe the peace of mind is worth more money than the customer loses. Maybe, for people besides me, especially people with worse than average health, maybe it's a worthwhile thing. Of course it's good for the big lotto winners who get their cancer care or open heart surgery paid for. But just like Vegas, the system only works when winners are an extreme minority.
Then comes the government option. In true socialized medicine is where everyone pays to one big pot and the pot pays for everyone's insurance. If you're healthy, you don't know who is benefiting from the money you pay in. If you're sick, you don't know who's saving you. And if you're too sick and the government bureaucracy sentences you to die because the cost/benefit ratio of saving you is just too high. It's just as harsh as the insurance-free world, but without any element of self-determination.
And lastly, the public option. The great government opt-in plan, paid by everyone for a select, needy few. The few certainly win - the get more health care paid for them than they can otherwise afford. But the many are paying for medical care twice - once for the public option of the few, and again for their own care. Thus, there is always a financial incentive to join the few. Either a line is drawn saying "This is all those who qualify," or the many continue to join the few until there is no one left to pay for the program. Covering more people inherently means more weight on the many or fewer benefits for the few. And that is exactly what Obama's SCHIP promise was to do: cover more children.
4 million children will step up from the lowest medical care demographic in the country to the SCHIP level, which is quite good. And the rest of the country will fall a tiny, imperceptible bit to pay for it. Does that improve the average? It doesn't improve my life, I know that. It doesn't improve my infant nephew's life; he doesn't qualify for SCHIP. All my family and friends will be hurt a teeny, tiny bit. But I shouldn't care. It's for the children, right? A small subset of the children are worth a broad, shallow layer of financial suffering over the rest of us. It's not so bad.
The reasoning of in the previous paragraph is what will continue to strain the economy of this country until it fails. Every new program is not too bad until the sum of them is beyond endurance. Or maybe it'll never go that far. Maybe it'll just be a constant annoyance in the lives of hundreds of millions, an inconvenience they ignore and endure forever for political correctness' sake. I still don't want it. It's still wrong.
One criticism of the bill at the time was that such a steep cigarette tax increase (from 23¢ per pack to 67¢) would reduce sales to the point where no revenue would actually be produced to offset the $24 billion cost of the bill. Orrin Hatch responded, "If we can keep people healthy and stop them from dying, I think most Americans would say 'Amen; isn't that a great result?' If fewer people smoke, states will save far more in lower health costs than they will lose in revenues from the cigarette tax." Then Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) argued against it, calling it a "big government program" and claiming it did not qualify under the Balanced Budget agreement between the Senate and the White House. Then-President Bill Clinton, who was responsible for compliance to the balanced budget agreement, called up many Senators to personally dissuade them from voting for the bill. On May 22nd, the bill failed in a vote of 55 to 45.
Senator Kennedy considered it a personal betrayal by a White House that cared more about the tobacco lobby than children's health. He and Hatch proposed the bill again a month later, this time as an amendment to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and with Hillary Clinton advocating for it in the White House. This time it passed. It passed in the House of Representatives easily, along party lines, and with relatively little drama.
The program was named "the State Children's Health Insurance Program" (abbreviated SCHIP or sometimes CHIP), and works by giving federal funds and a loose template for regulation of the program to states, who then apply the money to health insurance for children who might otherwise be uninsured or underinsured. Though originally aimed at children in families who were had only barely enough income to disqualify them for Medicare, some states have been given exceptions allowing dual coverage by Medicare and SCHIP.
Researchers from Brigham Young University (from Orrin Hatch's home state) and Aizona State University found that children removed from SCHIP tended to cost their states more money due to their care taking place as expensive emergency care rather than relatively cheap preventative care. Researchers from the Congressional Budget Office and the libertarian Cato Institute show that approximately half of children covered by SCHIP moved there from private insurance coverage -- in other words, that the program is "crowding out" private insurance coverage as much as it is covering the uninsured. Also, the expected ten-year cost of $24 billion ballooned to an actual cost of $40 billion.
After the 2006 election, the Democrats jumped to a near-2/3rds majority in both the House and Senate, just shy of what is necessary to override a Presidential Veto. Given their new-found influence, they sought to expand and extend the SCHIP program. In the Senate, they passed a bill intended to increase the planned $25 billion 5-year cost to $60 billion and loosen the federal restrictions on State implementation of the program. In the House they also voted to extend $6.5 billion in Medicare coverage to illegal immigrants. George W. Bush vetoed this SCHIP expansion, saying he opposed centralized, "federalized health care" on principle. Though some Republicans voted to override the President's veto, the overall vote was 13 votes shy and the veto was final.
Within a week, Democrats proposed the plan again, claiming they had improved the restrictions to keep the wealthy and non-citizens from gaining coverage. Bush vetoed it again, and the attempt to override his veto again failed.
By December 21, 2007 the Democrats had managed to find a sufficiently weakened extension of SCHIP that President Bush was willing to sign it into law. Rather than five years of an expanded program, it simply extended the existing plan until March of 2009. Essentially, it was an agreement to put off the question of SCHIP expansion until after the next election.
After Obama's election and the Democrat legislative gains of 2008, the issue was brought up once again. This time, the Democrats proposed to spend $32.8 billion (rather than $35 billion) and raise taxes on a variety of tobacco products to pay for it. 4 million more children are expected to be covered than under the old plan
The drama of the story is more interesting to me than the pros and cons of the policy itself, especially early on when it pitted Orrin Hatch against Trent Lott and Ted Kennedy against Bill Clinton. That was high drama, and I always favor the dissolution of party loyalty in favor of personal ideology. But the policy falls back on the usual, boring issues of government health insurance, "sin taxes", and Washington's complete disregard for budget balancing in name or spirit.
Each individual point is easy. I support healthy children. I oppose government insurance plans. I prefer state implementation over centralized, national programs. I oppose sin taxes, but not so much as I oppose most other forms of taxation. And the lack of balanced budgeting in Washington is the biggest, most publicly harmful disgrace in politics today.
Beyond all that, my greatest criticism is the great casino of health insurance. Public option, private option, however you slice it the design of health insurance is inherently a scam, a black hole which sucks away money from everyone.
Okay, I need to back up. That's a hugely controversial claim that needs better explication than that.
In a world without health insurance of any kind, a person like me would either save money or not and, in a medical emergency, would either be able to pay or not. Thus they would either live or not. It's a harsh world. People live or die based on how much money they have, or how much they can borrow or beg from banks, friends, and family. It's not a world I especially like.
The basis of medical insurance comes from people seeing the harshness of this world and seeking relief from it. Thus, they set up small, local groups dedicated to taking small, voluntary donations from many people to create a fund from which they can pay for emergency medical care. Ten people each give $10 a month to a central fund so that, on their 5th anniversary, they can pay $60,000 for heart bypass surgery for one of them. Ten people just paid for one person's life. That's fine, they're all friends and they feel heroic to be able to save their friend. It's a good thing for everyone.
It works so well, in fact, that big thinkers decide to do the same thing on a bigger scale. They establish charities, corporations, or government programs to provide such peace of mind to a great many people.
Voluntary donations to charities work great - people expect their money to help the unhealthy, and don't much care whether they personally benefit or not. They likely won't personally witness the results of their donations and, thus, won't be as willing to donate. But it works. It's worst fault is a tendency toward the impersonal, including the possibility that your money will go to help someone you wouldn't personally approve of helping. But that's pretty minor, espeically when compared the next few options.
Payments to Insurance Corporations are expected to pay for themselves, which pits customer and provider inherently against each other in a zero-sum game: either the company survives because the customers lose money, or the company goes bankrupt. Any insurance company that still exists gets more than it loses and, thus, it's customers lose more than they get. If that means they charge too much, or reject claims they should approve, or whatever means it takes the company will try to be profitable which is necessarily at the customers' expense. It's Las Vegas Insurance: the house always wins. But who knows? Maybe the peace of mind is worth more money than the customer loses. Maybe, for people besides me, especially people with worse than average health, maybe it's a worthwhile thing. Of course it's good for the big lotto winners who get their cancer care or open heart surgery paid for. But just like Vegas, the system only works when winners are an extreme minority.
Then comes the government option. In true socialized medicine is where everyone pays to one big pot and the pot pays for everyone's insurance. If you're healthy, you don't know who is benefiting from the money you pay in. If you're sick, you don't know who's saving you. And if you're too sick and the government bureaucracy sentences you to die because the cost/benefit ratio of saving you is just too high. It's just as harsh as the insurance-free world, but without any element of self-determination.
And lastly, the public option. The great government opt-in plan, paid by everyone for a select, needy few. The few certainly win - the get more health care paid for them than they can otherwise afford. But the many are paying for medical care twice - once for the public option of the few, and again for their own care. Thus, there is always a financial incentive to join the few. Either a line is drawn saying "This is all those who qualify," or the many continue to join the few until there is no one left to pay for the program. Covering more people inherently means more weight on the many or fewer benefits for the few. And that is exactly what Obama's SCHIP promise was to do: cover more children.
4 million children will step up from the lowest medical care demographic in the country to the SCHIP level, which is quite good. And the rest of the country will fall a tiny, imperceptible bit to pay for it. Does that improve the average? It doesn't improve my life, I know that. It doesn't improve my infant nephew's life; he doesn't qualify for SCHIP. All my family and friends will be hurt a teeny, tiny bit. But I shouldn't care. It's for the children, right? A small subset of the children are worth a broad, shallow layer of financial suffering over the rest of us. It's not so bad.
The reasoning of in the previous paragraph is what will continue to strain the economy of this country until it fails. Every new program is not too bad until the sum of them is beyond endurance. Or maybe it'll never go that far. Maybe it'll just be a constant annoyance in the lives of hundreds of millions, an inconvenience they ignore and endure forever for political correctness' sake. I still don't want it. It's still wrong.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Sin
Wired Magazine reported an analysis of sin in the USA mapped geographically. It's not really scientific, but it's entertaining. Apparently the midwest, great plains, and parts of the Mountain West are pretty saintly places to live, while the South, southern California, and the East Coast are the sin capitals. Who knew?
Realistically, it's pretty much impossible to measure sin scientifically. I don't think "expenditures on art, entertainment, and recreation compared to employment" is a good description of sloth, for example. Sloth is intended to reflect one's resistance to act to peoples' benefit - both your own or other peoples'. It's more likely that the ability to afford art is a sign of industrious productivity. How else did you get all that spending money?
Gluttony is measured by fast food restaurants per capita. No consideration of obesity rates? I guess obesity has truly been redefined as an illness rather than a moral failing.
Envy need not result in material theft. One could just as easily envy someone's expansive free time, cool job, unique talents, or close family ties.
These are all very shallow definitions. More accurate, thoughtful definitions would inherently be more difficult to measure. How do you measure how much someone chooses not to work? One who gives into lust frequently may also be sufficiently familiar with health issues and prevention to avoid STDs.
In the end, sin is a deeply personal matter, one which is best seen in ourselves by ourselves by introspective consideration without preconceptions. To recognize one's own strengths and failings is to reverse denial and reject self-deception. Another person cannot possibly know you well enough to judge sin, but neither do you easily know yourself so well either. It takes continual effort.
In this introspective way, what are you looking for? You are looking for obvious malice, of course, but also for insufficient effort. To kill someone is a sin, but to neglect someone is, too. It is not enough to draw a line and say "I will never be more sinful than this." Rather, one should continually walk away from sin, away from the line, and towards righteousness.
It's a tall order, though, isn't it? There are constant temptations to walk the wrong way, to stop entirely, and to walk the right way slowly. No one is ever quite done, ever fully free of mistakes of some magnitude or other. It's a very tall order.
Realistically, it's pretty much impossible to measure sin scientifically. I don't think "expenditures on art, entertainment, and recreation compared to employment" is a good description of sloth, for example. Sloth is intended to reflect one's resistance to act to peoples' benefit - both your own or other peoples'. It's more likely that the ability to afford art is a sign of industrious productivity. How else did you get all that spending money?
Gluttony is measured by fast food restaurants per capita. No consideration of obesity rates? I guess obesity has truly been redefined as an illness rather than a moral failing.
Envy need not result in material theft. One could just as easily envy someone's expansive free time, cool job, unique talents, or close family ties.
These are all very shallow definitions. More accurate, thoughtful definitions would inherently be more difficult to measure. How do you measure how much someone chooses not to work? One who gives into lust frequently may also be sufficiently familiar with health issues and prevention to avoid STDs.
In the end, sin is a deeply personal matter, one which is best seen in ourselves by ourselves by introspective consideration without preconceptions. To recognize one's own strengths and failings is to reverse denial and reject self-deception. Another person cannot possibly know you well enough to judge sin, but neither do you easily know yourself so well either. It takes continual effort.
In this introspective way, what are you looking for? You are looking for obvious malice, of course, but also for insufficient effort. To kill someone is a sin, but to neglect someone is, too. It is not enough to draw a line and say "I will never be more sinful than this." Rather, one should continually walk away from sin, away from the line, and towards righteousness.
It's a tall order, though, isn't it? There are constant temptations to walk the wrong way, to stop entirely, and to walk the right way slowly. No one is ever quite done, ever fully free of mistakes of some magnitude or other. It's a very tall order.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Okay, Here's The Story
No, my life did not flip or get turned upside down. But I would like to take a minute (just sit right there) to brag that as of yesterday I am officially out of debt. Yay.
Anyway, the hiatus has been because I've been writing my own website to use for my blog. I'm hoping to eventually make it more of a political discussion site than just a blog, but I'm making the blog part first. Here's the evolutionary plan:
I don't have much to show yet (in fact it's giving me at 503: Service Temporarily Unavailable error at the time of this writing, which I'm out of time to correct), but this will all be at Psudo.us.
I donno... maybe it'll be worth it, maybe not. But I have all these crazy plans demanding to be implemented, and I wanna try it.
There'd be more to show you, but I also somehow managed to get a few fake virus scanners installed on my network. Removing them has proven unexpectedly difficult, so that's been distracting me pretty well, too.
Anyway... I'm not sure this exactly qualifies as "regular posting", but at least you know what's going on now. Chaos has fallen, but I think I can get it sorted out pretty quickly. See ya'll later.
Anyway, the hiatus has been because I've been writing my own website to use for my blog. I'm hoping to eventually make it more of a political discussion site than just a blog, but I'm making the blog part first. Here's the evolutionary plan:
- Host my blog there.
- Add a feedback forum to the blog.
- Let others create blogs there, too.
- Put the best articles from all blogs on the main page -- kind of a blog-driven political news site.
- Put in a "Special Interest Groups" system for socio-political networking.
I don't have much to show yet (in fact it's giving me at 503: Service Temporarily Unavailable error at the time of this writing, which I'm out of time to correct), but this will all be at Psudo.us.
I donno... maybe it'll be worth it, maybe not. But I have all these crazy plans demanding to be implemented, and I wanna try it.
There'd be more to show you, but I also somehow managed to get a few fake virus scanners installed on my network. Removing them has proven unexpectedly difficult, so that's been distracting me pretty well, too.
Anyway... I'm not sure this exactly qualifies as "regular posting", but at least you know what's going on now. Chaos has fallen, but I think I can get it sorted out pretty quickly. See ya'll later.
Friday, September 18, 2009
One more day...
I said I'd resume regular posting on Friday (today), but it looks like it's gonna be Saturday (tomorrow). I'll have something to show, though, that will explain my behavior.
Sorry to try your patience (assuming there are readers out there).
Sorry to try your patience (assuming there are readers out there).
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Obameter #40: Fixing The Alternative Minimum Tax
(WTC: Remember and Rebuild.)
In 1984, Secretary of the Treasury Donald Regan asked President Ronald Reagan what General Electric, Boeing, General Dynamics, and more than 50 other big companies had in common. Reagan replied that he didn't know. Regan told him that they pay no taxes at all, and provided proof. Both men agreed this was wrong. In the 1984 State of the Union address, Reagan announced his intention "to simplify the entire tax code so all taxpayers, big and small, are treated fairly."
In 1986, the Reagan Administration along with allied Democrats from the Legislature passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which lowered tax rates while closing numerous tax loopholes and simplifying the tax rules. It also set an Alternative Minimum Tax, insuring that rich companies and individuals could not escape paying a certain level of taxes no matter how creative their use of tax shelters and tax write-offs.
However, unlike the standard tax brackets, the requirements of the alternative minimum tax were not bound to inflation. As the value of the dollar shrinks over time, more and more of the middle class began to fall under the definition of "rich" used by the alternative minimum tax. Legislatures have frequently passed AMT "patches" to exempt the middle class from the tax for a year or so, but a permanent fix was considered too expensive to the annual budget.
During the 2008 campaign, Obama and McCain both promised to make the 2007 patch permanent and index the AMT to inflation, thus preventing it from gradually covering individuals with lower and lower income levels. The permanent fix was added by the Senate to the The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Stimulus Bill) in negotiations with Senate Republicans whose votes were needed to pass the overall bill. Three Republican Senators, Susan Collins of Maine, Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, were convinced by these negotiations and the ARRA passed. They are the only Republicans in the House or the Senate to vote for the ARRA package.
For Obama, that means promise kept. For Republicans, it's a depressing sign of how little influence we have in government today; even with 92% of Republicans in the Senate and 99.4% in the House opposing the ARRA, it still passed. I don't know what else was involved in those Senate negotiations, but I hope one universally supported issue point was not the purchase price of three Republican Senators' support for such a ridiculously huge chuck of government spending as the ARRA ($787 billion).
I do support the AMT changes as promised and delivered, so thumbs up for Obama on that point. The massive stimulus bill of which it was an influential part has earned my disgust and opposition. Since it is far too complex and inclusive to ever be covered as an Obama promise separately, I'm going to take this time to rant in address of the ARRA itself directly.
There are parts of ARRA I like and parts I don't like. Virtually anyone would be able to say the same thing. It has hundreds of individual programs all passed together as one incredible, huge, diverse behemoth measuring three quarters of a trillion dollars. It's five times the cost of the Bush Administration's stimulus bill of 2008, and twice the size of all the Homeland Security Appropriations Acts of that administration combined (at the time, Democrats in the House condemned the Homeland Security Act for changing too much with one monolithic bill), and it's larger than the entire US Federal Budget of 1982. It contains more than 140 separate programs that could not be addressed individually, but only confirmed or rejected as a massive whole. It's complexity ensures that everyone who voted for it voted for at least one program they do not approve of, and everyone who voted against it voted against at least one program they support. It's an intentional evasion of consideration of these programs individually on their own merits, and as such is a circumvention of critical analysis. It is wrong to circumvent critical thinking. The bill is a monument to compromised principles and deferential concession. It was passed almost exactly along party lines, also making it a monument to legislation by brute-force partisanship. Regardless of the value of the individual programs, passing them as a monolithic whole was bad governance and deserves condemnation.
In 1984, Secretary of the Treasury Donald Regan asked President Ronald Reagan what General Electric, Boeing, General Dynamics, and more than 50 other big companies had in common. Reagan replied that he didn't know. Regan told him that they pay no taxes at all, and provided proof. Both men agreed this was wrong. In the 1984 State of the Union address, Reagan announced his intention "to simplify the entire tax code so all taxpayers, big and small, are treated fairly."
In 1986, the Reagan Administration along with allied Democrats from the Legislature passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which lowered tax rates while closing numerous tax loopholes and simplifying the tax rules. It also set an Alternative Minimum Tax, insuring that rich companies and individuals could not escape paying a certain level of taxes no matter how creative their use of tax shelters and tax write-offs.
However, unlike the standard tax brackets, the requirements of the alternative minimum tax were not bound to inflation. As the value of the dollar shrinks over time, more and more of the middle class began to fall under the definition of "rich" used by the alternative minimum tax. Legislatures have frequently passed AMT "patches" to exempt the middle class from the tax for a year or so, but a permanent fix was considered too expensive to the annual budget.
During the 2008 campaign, Obama and McCain both promised to make the 2007 patch permanent and index the AMT to inflation, thus preventing it from gradually covering individuals with lower and lower income levels. The permanent fix was added by the Senate to the The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Stimulus Bill) in negotiations with Senate Republicans whose votes were needed to pass the overall bill. Three Republican Senators, Susan Collins of Maine, Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, were convinced by these negotiations and the ARRA passed. They are the only Republicans in the House or the Senate to vote for the ARRA package.
$3,600b 2009 Federal Budget
Previously discussed wasteful spending
Previously discussed worthwhile spending
$70b Alternative Minimum Tax reform
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009
I do support the AMT changes as promised and delivered, so thumbs up for Obama on that point. The massive stimulus bill of which it was an influential part has earned my disgust and opposition. Since it is far too complex and inclusive to ever be covered as an Obama promise separately, I'm going to take this time to rant in address of the ARRA itself directly.
There are parts of ARRA I like and parts I don't like. Virtually anyone would be able to say the same thing. It has hundreds of individual programs all passed together as one incredible, huge, diverse behemoth measuring three quarters of a trillion dollars. It's five times the cost of the Bush Administration's stimulus bill of 2008, and twice the size of all the Homeland Security Appropriations Acts of that administration combined (at the time, Democrats in the House condemned the Homeland Security Act for changing too much with one monolithic bill), and it's larger than the entire US Federal Budget of 1982. It contains more than 140 separate programs that could not be addressed individually, but only confirmed or rejected as a massive whole. It's complexity ensures that everyone who voted for it voted for at least one program they do not approve of, and everyone who voted against it voted against at least one program they support. It's an intentional evasion of consideration of these programs individually on their own merits, and as such is a circumvention of critical analysis. It is wrong to circumvent critical thinking. The bill is a monument to compromised principles and deferential concession. It was passed almost exactly along party lines, also making it a monument to legislation by brute-force partisanship. Regardless of the value of the individual programs, passing them as a monolithic whole was bad governance and deserves condemnation.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Beautifully Dark Music
My tastes in music gravitate toward simple melody, dark moods, and emotional power. I'll give you some examples with commentary in no particular order. If you're unfamiliar with a given song, click the + after it for it's music video (courtesy of YouTube) and lyrics (courtesy of Google). Clicking the × will hide it again.
- "Send Me An Angel" by the Scorpions +×
This is actually a profoundly Christian song, perhaps a prayer. This is most obviously demonstrated by the title; who can send angels besides God? There's also the "promised land" reference, a Biblical term referring literally to Israel and symbolically to heaven. But there are subtler clues, too. The lyrics are recitations of the words of a "wise man" who advises many of the same things Jesus did, such as "Hear the voice" that leads you "out of the dark" -- the Holy Spirit (the conscience) leads you away from misery and regret. The intentional mention of "thorns", I think, is intended to have a double meaning -- the obvious one of roses (the good parts of life) having thorns (dangers), but also a subtle reference to Jesus' crown of thorns -- another hint that the song's Wise Man is Jesus Christ. Why does the singer need angelic help? Because he's in "the land of the morning star". "Morning star" is a Biblical name of Satan; thus, he needs aid because he's in the land of the devil.
The song tells, then, of a man drowning in the influence of Satan, calling out to the Christian God to send him the aid necessary to save him from misery. It's a very dark moment, the height of peril before the rescue. It's also a masterfully beautiful power ballad. - "Suicide is Painless" by Johnny Mandel and Mike Altman +×
Best known as "The Theme From M*A*S*H", the lyrics tell the thoughts of a suicidal man rationalizing that life is pain and death is relief. It is almost advocacy for suicide, a revolting concept -- and yet, it's a beautiful song. It's worth noting that the character "Painless Pole" from the original movie of M*A*S*H attempts suicide, a reference to the song's title. Marilyn Manson covered the song, reportedly calling the original "more depressing and offensive than anything I've ever done." - "Troy" by Sinead O'Connor +×
This song begins from quiet, almost romantic words about her being together with someone, fire, and restoration. But gradually the story sounds like a hated, regretted, betrayal of a romance. It becomes apparent that the singer has been abandoned by the partner she loved and still loves. She rejects this ex-lover even while she cannot live without them.
No one but Sinead O'Connor can mix violent rage and melodic beauty in the same voice at the same moment, and no song has a better example than the energetic fury at the end of this song. It is utterly unique.
I get a lot of crap from fellow conservatives for liking Sinead O'Connor. She is very political in ways that are clearly incompatible with US conservatism. She has done a lot of seemingly crazy, outrageous things that are offensive to various people. But more than a conservative I'm a non-conformist and a moralist, and no one holds more tightly to a non-conformist morality than Sinead O'Connor. She does what she believes is right at all costs. That is an awfully rare and beautiful thing, and I am going to give her proper respect for that and for her powerful talent regardless of anything. - "Last Kiss" as covered by J. Frank Wilson (and others) +×
A teen watches his love die in his arms after a car accident (presumably his fault), garnering one last kiss and a few last words before she goes. It's remarkably sincere, dark, and painful for such an old song. I've always associated the wordless syllables at the end as cries of guilt and agony at the end. I believe it was an Everclear version I first heard, but I can't find that version around anymore.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
"House" and the Public Option
The best TV show around, in my humble opinion, is Fox's "House M.D." I've been watching it since the first episode, I own four seasons of it on DVD (I've seen them all at least 5 times each), and I frequently visit a blog in which an actual medical doctor reviews the show for medical inaccuracies.
That self-same doctor was interviewed by MSNBC for an article about "House" published today. People with real health problems are searching the world for a "real Dr. House", someone who can solve their puzzle and tell them what they have sometime faster than the average of 7 years it takes for a definitive diagnosis for a rare disease.
The article ends with a criticism against the TV doctor that the TV show itself has already addressed. From the article: "In med school, doctors-to-be learn the opposite, summed up by the adage, 'If you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.'" From the show: "Are you in first year medical school? If she had [a common, 'horse' of a disease] the kindly family doctor in Trenton would have made the diagnosis. It'd never get anywhere near this office." Dr. House isn't a fictional version of your family doctor. He's a fictional version of a job that doesn't exist -- the authority that doctors refer you to as an admission that they can't solve your problem. If a regular doctor is your county judge, Dr. House is the Supreme Court. When he has to deal with patients directly in the clinic, he tells them exactly what your doctor will tell you when you talk to them: it's a cold. It's the flu. It's a horse, not a zebra. It's only once the horses are ruled out that Dr. House even comes into play.
One particular story of a too-long-awaited diagnosis struck a nerve.
For a further example of the political angle of it, look at Medicare. The principle behind Medicare is that government pays for the health care of the needy. In practice, though, Medicare rarely covers the full price of the service. Doctors have to cut costs, raise prices, and rush through as many patients per day as possible in order to make ends meet when accepting Medicare patients. In short, government health insurance makes health care worse. The White House has been promoting Obama's health care plan with the very words "Medicare for everyone." This spells doom.
You want better medical care? Look to your pocket book. Unlike government programs, it might help.
That self-same doctor was interviewed by MSNBC for an article about "House" published today. People with real health problems are searching the world for a "real Dr. House", someone who can solve their puzzle and tell them what they have sometime faster than the average of 7 years it takes for a definitive diagnosis for a rare disease.
The article ends with a criticism against the TV doctor that the TV show itself has already addressed. From the article: "In med school, doctors-to-be learn the opposite, summed up by the adage, 'If you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.'" From the show: "Are you in first year medical school? If she had [a common, 'horse' of a disease] the kindly family doctor in Trenton would have made the diagnosis. It'd never get anywhere near this office." Dr. House isn't a fictional version of your family doctor. He's a fictional version of a job that doesn't exist -- the authority that doctors refer you to as an admission that they can't solve your problem. If a regular doctor is your county judge, Dr. House is the Supreme Court. When he has to deal with patients directly in the clinic, he tells them exactly what your doctor will tell you when you talk to them: it's a cold. It's the flu. It's a horse, not a zebra. It's only once the horses are ruled out that Dr. House even comes into play.
One particular story of a too-long-awaited diagnosis struck a nerve.
It took five months — and visits to 21 doctors — before one finally correctly diagnosed her with Lyme disease, a bacterial infection often spread by deer ticks.Did you get chills, too? If not, let me spell it out: No one was able to solve her medical problem until she got to the doctor that doesn't accept health insurance. That's not from House, the fictional TV show. No one would write anything so crazily unbelievable. No, no, that's the real-world true story. The elitist, overpaid doctor could afford the time to properly consider and finally solve the puzzle. That's exactly the kind of thing the big Obama Health Bill currently being debated in the legislature is designed to stall. In all our worries about health care costs, we forget one thing: you get what you pay for.
That final doctor, she says, did something that all those before her hadn't. “She listened to me,” said Risley, who opted to see a physician who was generous with her time, and got paid well for it, accepting only out-of-pocket payments.
For a further example of the political angle of it, look at Medicare. The principle behind Medicare is that government pays for the health care of the needy. In practice, though, Medicare rarely covers the full price of the service. Doctors have to cut costs, raise prices, and rush through as many patients per day as possible in order to make ends meet when accepting Medicare patients. In short, government health insurance makes health care worse. The White House has been promoting Obama's health care plan with the very words "Medicare for everyone." This spells doom.
You want better medical care? Look to your pocket book. Unlike government programs, it might help.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Obameter #36: Small Business Loans
Stop. It's Obamatime.
Obama believes that small businesses are the key to the economy, both for the recovery from our immediate situation and for long-term growth. In his own words, "Our recovery in the present and our prosperity in the future depend upon the success of America's small businesses and entrepreneurs." So when the US Small Business Administration (SBA) reported loans to small businesses were looking to be down $10 billion this year he felt compelled to act.
The old program said loans of up to $150,000 given to small businesses would be guaranteed for 85% of their value by the SBA. That way, the banks would get most of their money back one way or another. With the risk thus minimized, banks would be more willing to give out loans and small businesses would have a little boost from Uncle Sam. Larger loans might be guaranteed for as much as 75% of their value.
Obama expanded this incentive program, just as promised. For a limited time, the government will cover 90% of the amount of small business loans. The price tag on this limited time expansion will be "up to $15 billion", according to the White House website.
What kind of measure of success is this? The government is spending less money than was expected. Thus, we must increase the amount of money government is spending to $5 billion more than was expected. The unspoken assumption in this logic is that government spending makes things better. But does it?
All through 2008 the SBA was up to it's $20 billion spending expectation, encouraging banks to lend to small businesses that were less likely to be able to pay them back. At the end of 2008, there was a huge financial crisis caused, in part, by lending money to people who probably wouldn't pay it back. Now banks aren't loaning money to risky clients even with the current SBA incentives. And Obama's solution is to increase the incentive for banks to lend money to business plans risky enough that they won't do it without government taking away 90% of the risk?
The banks learned their lesson. Why won't government?
Learn from Duke Nukem Forever: some projects are doomed to fail and do not deserve continued funding. They should be allowed to die. That's why investors aren't investing in them: they don't want to be carried down into debt with them. Government should not be spending money in support of risky lending.
Thankfully, Obama's lousy business loans plan has merely a $15 billion price tag. It's a drop in the federal bucket, less than one half of 1% of the annual budget. It's too little money to seriously worry about for it's own sake. What this example demonstrates about this administration's economic sense, though, remains a strike against them.
Obama believes that small businesses are the key to the economy, both for the recovery from our immediate situation and for long-term growth. In his own words, "Our recovery in the present and our prosperity in the future depend upon the success of America's small businesses and entrepreneurs." So when the US Small Business Administration (SBA) reported loans to small businesses were looking to be down $10 billion this year he felt compelled to act.
The old program said loans of up to $150,000 given to small businesses would be guaranteed for 85% of their value by the SBA. That way, the banks would get most of their money back one way or another. With the risk thus minimized, banks would be more willing to give out loans and small businesses would have a little boost from Uncle Sam. Larger loans might be guaranteed for as much as 75% of their value.
$3,600b 2009 Federal Budget
Previously discussed wasteful spending
Previously discussed worthwhile spending
$15b Small Business loan incentive expansion
What kind of measure of success is this? The government is spending less money than was expected. Thus, we must increase the amount of money government is spending to $5 billion more than was expected. The unspoken assumption in this logic is that government spending makes things better. But does it?
All through 2008 the SBA was up to it's $20 billion spending expectation, encouraging banks to lend to small businesses that were less likely to be able to pay them back. At the end of 2008, there was a huge financial crisis caused, in part, by lending money to people who probably wouldn't pay it back. Now banks aren't loaning money to risky clients even with the current SBA incentives. And Obama's solution is to increase the incentive for banks to lend money to business plans risky enough that they won't do it without government taking away 90% of the risk?
The banks learned their lesson. Why won't government?
Learn from Duke Nukem Forever: some projects are doomed to fail and do not deserve continued funding. They should be allowed to die. That's why investors aren't investing in them: they don't want to be carried down into debt with them. Government should not be spending money in support of risky lending.
Thankfully, Obama's lousy business loans plan has merely a $15 billion price tag. It's a drop in the federal bucket, less than one half of 1% of the annual budget. It's too little money to seriously worry about for it's own sake. What this example demonstrates about this administration's economic sense, though, remains a strike against them.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Is The Stimulus Working?
Pale blue is what was expected without the stimulus plan.
Darker blue is what was expected with the stimulus plan.
Maroon is actual unemployment as reported monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
I found the graphic here.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
True Stories
A man tells the world a story. People who hear the story live kinder, better lives. Thus, the story is good. Does it matter whether the story is true?
I've heard far more arguments from agnostics and atheists disputing the historical truth of religion than the moral implications of religion. That seems to be the reverse of their relevance. Even if there never was a Good Samaritan, if there never was a Job or a Goliath, if there was no serpent in a garden called Eden, aren't they morally valuable stories anyway?
There are good morals in Aesop's Fables, too. Does anyone believe those stories really happened?
So why are Aesop's Fables acceptable public school curriculum and Bible stories not? Surely a story of disputed truth is not inherently morally inferior to a story of indisputable fiction.
This is a little more controversial than my usual Sunday post, but frankly it's the only idea that got past my writer's block. Even so, it was still a day late. Sorry.
I've heard far more arguments from agnostics and atheists disputing the historical truth of religion than the moral implications of religion. That seems to be the reverse of their relevance. Even if there never was a Good Samaritan, if there never was a Job or a Goliath, if there was no serpent in a garden called Eden, aren't they morally valuable stories anyway?
There are good morals in Aesop's Fables, too. Does anyone believe those stories really happened?
So why are Aesop's Fables acceptable public school curriculum and Bible stories not? Surely a story of disputed truth is not inherently morally inferior to a story of indisputable fiction.
This is a little more controversial than my usual Sunday post, but frankly it's the only idea that got past my writer's block. Even so, it was still a day late. Sorry.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Obameter #34: PAYGO
PAYGO (short for "pay as you go") is the government term for actually coming up with the money to be spent on government programs. It means either cutting spending or raising taxes to pay for any new spending increase or tax cut. It's also one of the most ignored rules in Congress.
The Obama Campaign talked a pretty good game. They invoked PAYGO as an Obama priority, throwing around phrases like "fiscal discipline", "balanced budget", and "surpluses like the 1990s". But since the election there hasn't been a single bill that has strictly followed PAYGO.
First we had the stimulus bill, the whole point of which was to flood the private sector with loose cash. Draining the flood back with higher taxes would have defeated the whole purpose, so it was given an exemption to PAYGO rules.
Then we had SCHIP, the supplement to the Children's Health Insurance Program. To cover it's expense they had benefits fall off after 5 years, but kept the tax hike for 10 years. (It's a tobacco tax, an extra 62¢ a pack. Apparently for irony.) That's not really "pay as you go" in spirit when it takes you twice as long to pay as it does to go, but it technically qualifies under the existing PAYGO rules.
The next big spending bill will be the big, controversial national health care bill. The House version of the bill looks to cost $1.2 trillion, about a third of the total annual budget. If it completely replaces Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, that'll just about cover the cost. But not all of Social Security is health-related, that would mean a lot of people (my grandmother and mother-in-law among them) would be facing some serious financial setbacks. I'm around to catch and help my family, but it seems like political suicide for Obama to actually cut all that spending to pay for his new program. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what he does.
The unsure future of PAYGO under Obama let PolitiFact to call the promise stalled rather than broken outright. I predict that breaking this promise is inevitable.
I don't mind that part, though. PAYGO is kind of stupid.
Sometimes there are emergencies that demand heavy spending. Conservatives should remember Reagan's defense spending and how it broke the back of the Soviet Empire, liberals would probably see the Great Depression and the current economic crisis as good examples (I disagree, but now is not the time), and everyone should remember World War 2. Occasionally emergency spending is justified, and PAYGO does not recognize that fact.
Even in stable times, PAYGO encourages zero-sum budgeting when we should be looking to continually cut spending until the national debt is paid down. In essence, PAYGO says not increasing the debt is good enough when, in fact, it's not good enough. Just short of 10% of the annual federal budget is paying the interest on the national debt! That's $360 billion dollars per year for past bad budgeting! We could pay for half of social security, half of total defense spending, or half of the bank bailout with that.
But it's not really the size of the national debt that is the big concern, but the size of the debt relative to the total national economy (GDP). If the debt stays constant but the economy does great, that's just as good. That makes cutting taxes and economic regulation spending in unison better than increasing taxes and such spending in tandem. PAYGO doesn't reflect that, either. A big balanced budget or a small balanced budget are considered equally respectable by it's flawed rules.
Ideally, we'd want to cut taxes a little and cut spending a lot, thus creating a budget surplus and improving the national economy. Debt as a proportion of GDP would drop like a rock.
But that's the opposite of what Obama's been doing. Even if the bailouts are excused as emergency spending for the financial crisis, why pass SCHIP and national health insurance at a time of financial crisis? It not only offends PAYGO, it offends the legitimate goals PAYGO incompetently pursues. That's what I mind.
Obama gets an F- on this one. Worse Than Failure. Could not be more wrong.
The Obama Campaign talked a pretty good game. They invoked PAYGO as an Obama priority, throwing around phrases like "fiscal discipline", "balanced budget", and "surpluses like the 1990s". But since the election there hasn't been a single bill that has strictly followed PAYGO.
First we had the stimulus bill, the whole point of which was to flood the private sector with loose cash. Draining the flood back with higher taxes would have defeated the whole purpose, so it was given an exemption to PAYGO rules.
Then we had SCHIP, the supplement to the Children's Health Insurance Program. To cover it's expense they had benefits fall off after 5 years, but kept the tax hike for 10 years. (It's a tobacco tax, an extra 62¢ a pack. Apparently for irony.) That's not really "pay as you go" in spirit when it takes you twice as long to pay as it does to go, but it technically qualifies under the existing PAYGO rules.
The next big spending bill will be the big, controversial national health care bill. The House version of the bill looks to cost $1.2 trillion, about a third of the total annual budget. If it completely replaces Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, that'll just about cover the cost. But not all of Social Security is health-related, that would mean a lot of people (my grandmother and mother-in-law among them) would be facing some serious financial setbacks. I'm around to catch and help my family, but it seems like political suicide for Obama to actually cut all that spending to pay for his new program. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what he does.
The unsure future of PAYGO under Obama let PolitiFact to call the promise stalled rather than broken outright. I predict that breaking this promise is inevitable.
I don't mind that part, though. PAYGO is kind of stupid.
Sometimes there are emergencies that demand heavy spending. Conservatives should remember Reagan's defense spending and how it broke the back of the Soviet Empire, liberals would probably see the Great Depression and the current economic crisis as good examples (I disagree, but now is not the time), and everyone should remember World War 2. Occasionally emergency spending is justified, and PAYGO does not recognize that fact.
Even in stable times, PAYGO encourages zero-sum budgeting when we should be looking to continually cut spending until the national debt is paid down. In essence, PAYGO says not increasing the debt is good enough when, in fact, it's not good enough. Just short of 10% of the annual federal budget is paying the interest on the national debt! That's $360 billion dollars per year for past bad budgeting! We could pay for half of social security, half of total defense spending, or half of the bank bailout with that.
But it's not really the size of the national debt that is the big concern, but the size of the debt relative to the total national economy (GDP). If the debt stays constant but the economy does great, that's just as good. That makes cutting taxes and economic regulation spending in unison better than increasing taxes and such spending in tandem. PAYGO doesn't reflect that, either. A big balanced budget or a small balanced budget are considered equally respectable by it's flawed rules.
Ideally, we'd want to cut taxes a little and cut spending a lot, thus creating a budget surplus and improving the national economy. Debt as a proportion of GDP would drop like a rock.
But that's the opposite of what Obama's been doing. Even if the bailouts are excused as emergency spending for the financial crisis, why pass SCHIP and national health insurance at a time of financial crisis? It not only offends PAYGO, it offends the legitimate goals PAYGO incompetently pursues. That's what I mind.
Obama gets an F- on this one. Worse Than Failure. Could not be more wrong.
The USA and The UAE
Apparently I wrote this post twice. I think this version (originally dated 8/29/09) is actually better than the previously published version. Oh, well. Compare and enjoy.
In 2006, the White House approved of the sale of several sea ports to a corporation owned by the United Arab Emirates. The ports were already foreign-owned (owned by a British company). George W. Bush thought the sale was a great idea that would demonstrate that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not an assault on Islam or Arabs generally. Conservatives opposed the plan, arguing that it would harm national security to have an Arab nation responsible for keeping terrorists out. In my opinion, the opposition was a combination of racism and a mistaken impression that the UAE could not be effective.
On Friday, Aug 28, 2009, UAE forces captured a shipment of weapons of war being distributed from North Korea to Iran in violation of a bunch of international sanctions. Both North Korea and Iran share in common controversial, unilateral experimentation with nuclear material. For these among other reasons, both were listed (alongside Saddam's Iraq) by George W. Bush as "an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." [1] And now there's a connection, and our allies the UAE, whom we should have trusted, have identified and weakened the link between them.
It was a miserable mistake for us to refuse the UAE port deal. We should treat our allies better. Will the current administration, with it's new-found emphasis on our reputation in the world, address this? We shall see.
In 2006, the White House approved of the sale of several sea ports to a corporation owned by the United Arab Emirates. The ports were already foreign-owned (owned by a British company). George W. Bush thought the sale was a great idea that would demonstrate that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not an assault on Islam or Arabs generally. Conservatives opposed the plan, arguing that it would harm national security to have an Arab nation responsible for keeping terrorists out. In my opinion, the opposition was a combination of racism and a mistaken impression that the UAE could not be effective.
On Friday, Aug 28, 2009, UAE forces captured a shipment of weapons of war being distributed from North Korea to Iran in violation of a bunch of international sanctions. Both North Korea and Iran share in common controversial, unilateral experimentation with nuclear material. For these among other reasons, both were listed (alongside Saddam's Iraq) by George W. Bush as "an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." [1] And now there's a connection, and our allies the UAE, whom we should have trusted, have identified and weakened the link between them.
It was a miserable mistake for us to refuse the UAE port deal. We should treat our allies better. Will the current administration, with it's new-found emphasis on our reputation in the world, address this? We shall see.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Obameter #33: A Credit Card 'Bill of Rights'
The title of this one irks me hard. Semi-partisan regulation of the personal credit industry should not be symbolically compared to the revered, rational basis of freedom in the United States. The Constitution before it is institutional genius, but the Bill of Rights is human aspiration in ink. This Credit Card "Bill of Rights" is just fiscal sector regulation, an interesting detail in a vast legal code. The comparison is physically revolting.
But it's just a name. On to what it's about.
Credit companies are notorious (deservedly or otherwise) for hidden fees, unexpected rate hikes, and other financially hurtful tactics if you miss a payment. We've all heard horror stories, right? In an effort to combat this, the Obama campaign offered a list of new rules to implement to correct the various abuses. The new rules were based on three central principles:
Critics of the bill include bankers questioning the logic of restricting the provision of credit during a dramatic credit crunch and politicians questioning the justice of increasing everyone's interest rates in order to save credit debtors from debt for which they are at least partially at fault. The first criticism has a factual basis in that personal credit receded by a record-setting $11.1 billion the March the bill passed. The latter is harder to verify, as it's been only a couple of months and credit card interest rates have climbed continually for years. My wife says she noticed a sharp rate increase on our credit cards' interest rates, but our single example doesn't prove a national trend.
Still, the logic behind the interest rate criticism fits. If we image credit cards offering competitive rates to attract customers and horrible "gotcha" clauses if you miss a payment or only pay the minimum due each month, then financially foolish were carrying the weight of our credit cards for us. If the law ends that, isn't it logical to think the rest of us will be carrying a bit more of the financial load necessary to keep the credit card companies in the black? I can sympathize with someone who got themselves into a credit debt mess and is looking for help out, but I loose some of that sympathy when money is taken out of my pocket regardless of my opinion on the matter and used to aid them. I imagine we'll see a recognizable rate increase once we have more data available.
Conveniently, I'll be out of debt at approximately the end of the month. I plan never to use credit cards again. If it weren't for my wife's insistence that we keep 'em around for financial emergencies, I'd happily send them through my sleek, powerful shredder today. (It'll shred CDs, cardboard, unopened credit card applications... I love that shredder!)
Anyhoo, back to Obama. I have mixed feelings about this bill, even ignoring the horrendous name. I want to see credit card debtors helped, but I disapprove of government wielding private industry in such a way as to levy more fiscal weight onto the backs of the fiscally responsible. I certainly can't fault the law enforcement principle, but overall I have to disapprove. There are already credit counseling programs, debt reduction services, and Dave Ramsey out there helping people directly. I'm not sure this government intervention improves upon their existing efforts.
I'm right on the edge, but I lean just a hair toward opposing the bill. It's probably just my conservative bias -- if a change doesn't obviously improve things overall, why make it?
But it's just a name. On to what it's about.
Credit companies are notorious (deservedly or otherwise) for hidden fees, unexpected rate hikes, and other financially hurtful tactics if you miss a payment. We've all heard horror stories, right? In an effort to combat this, the Obama campaign offered a list of new rules to implement to correct the various abuses. The new rules were based on three central principles:
- No rate hikes without advance warning and only in response to non-payment.
- Contract rules in plain English available online for easy comparison shopping.
- Effective oversight by law enforcement to ensure credit card companies are actually following the rules.
Critics of the bill include bankers questioning the logic of restricting the provision of credit during a dramatic credit crunch and politicians questioning the justice of increasing everyone's interest rates in order to save credit debtors from debt for which they are at least partially at fault. The first criticism has a factual basis in that personal credit receded by a record-setting $11.1 billion the March the bill passed. The latter is harder to verify, as it's been only a couple of months and credit card interest rates have climbed continually for years. My wife says she noticed a sharp rate increase on our credit cards' interest rates, but our single example doesn't prove a national trend.
Still, the logic behind the interest rate criticism fits. If we image credit cards offering competitive rates to attract customers and horrible "gotcha" clauses if you miss a payment or only pay the minimum due each month, then financially foolish were carrying the weight of our credit cards for us. If the law ends that, isn't it logical to think the rest of us will be carrying a bit more of the financial load necessary to keep the credit card companies in the black? I can sympathize with someone who got themselves into a credit debt mess and is looking for help out, but I loose some of that sympathy when money is taken out of my pocket regardless of my opinion on the matter and used to aid them. I imagine we'll see a recognizable rate increase once we have more data available.
Conveniently, I'll be out of debt at approximately the end of the month. I plan never to use credit cards again. If it weren't for my wife's insistence that we keep 'em around for financial emergencies, I'd happily send them through my sleek, powerful shredder today. (It'll shred CDs, cardboard, unopened credit card applications... I love that shredder!)
Anyhoo, back to Obama. I have mixed feelings about this bill, even ignoring the horrendous name. I want to see credit card debtors helped, but I disapprove of government wielding private industry in such a way as to levy more fiscal weight onto the backs of the fiscally responsible. I certainly can't fault the law enforcement principle, but overall I have to disapprove. There are already credit counseling programs, debt reduction services, and Dave Ramsey out there helping people directly. I'm not sure this government intervention improves upon their existing efforts.
I'm right on the edge, but I lean just a hair toward opposing the bill. It's probably just my conservative bias -- if a change doesn't obviously improve things overall, why make it?
Thursday, September 3, 2009
"The Terminal" (2004)
Victor Navorski, a tourist from the imaginary eastern European nation of Krakozia, has a problem. While he was in flight from Krakozia to New York City, there was a military coup in his homeland. All Krakozian travel rights have been suspended, so he cannot go back. And the USA has not yet recognized this new government, so he cannot come into US soil. Thus, he has fallen into a small crack in the system. Legally, he can only remain in the international terminal until something changes. He can only wait.
He remains in this state of limbo for approximately 10 months. 10 months in an airport. Yet he manages to learn some English, make friends with the employees, find love, and discover what is great about America, all without leaving the terminal. Life, as the tagline says, is waiting.
This story lands somewhere between a romantic comedy and a biographical drama. It is (very) loosely based on the plight of a man who was actually stuck in a Parisian airport for two months. A similar story in Canada ended tragically a few years after this movie was made. (That's right, this didn't happen in the USA. Please ignore the subtle, politically biased hints at the start of the movie that all immigration woes are the fault of the Department of Homeland Security, as reality does not reflect any such thing.) It is sweet and heartwarming for the most part, with occasional sharp corners of hard reality pointing through. Tom Hanks plays Victor majestically, even learning to speak Bulgarian (not Russian) for the part. The faults of Cathrine Zeta-Jones' character are faults of morality only; she plays the flawed character brilliantly.
All taken together, this is a beautiful, heart-warming movie of the American dream as experienced by a visitor. The characters are human but heroic, the set is immense, the plot flows nicely and avoids formula or cliche. I wholeheartedly recommend this movie to everyone. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
He remains in this state of limbo for approximately 10 months. 10 months in an airport. Yet he manages to learn some English, make friends with the employees, find love, and discover what is great about America, all without leaving the terminal. Life, as the tagline says, is waiting.
This story lands somewhere between a romantic comedy and a biographical drama. It is (very) loosely based on the plight of a man who was actually stuck in a Parisian airport for two months. A similar story in Canada ended tragically a few years after this movie was made. (That's right, this didn't happen in the USA. Please ignore the subtle, politically biased hints at the start of the movie that all immigration woes are the fault of the Department of Homeland Security, as reality does not reflect any such thing.) It is sweet and heartwarming for the most part, with occasional sharp corners of hard reality pointing through. Tom Hanks plays Victor majestically, even learning to speak Bulgarian (not Russian) for the part. The faults of Cathrine Zeta-Jones' character are faults of morality only; she plays the flawed character brilliantly.
All taken together, this is a beautiful, heart-warming movie of the American dream as experienced by a visitor. The characters are human but heroic, the set is immense, the plot flows nicely and avoids formula or cliche. I wholeheartedly recommend this movie to everyone. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
The Haudenosaunee and The Revolution
During the American Revolutionary War, the American Indians of the Iroquois Confederacy (formally called the Haudenosaunee) were officially neutral. Two men, Joseph Brant (Thayendanegea) and Joseph Louis Cook (Akiatonharónkwen) were not satisfied with neutrality. Brant advocated and fought for the British cause, while Colonel Louis (as he was known) and his regiment of Oneida tribesmen fought for the Continental Army. So great was their political division that it almost caused a civil war within the Haudenosaunee. Colonel Louis' rank was eventually formalized, having been commissioned as a Lieutenant Colonel by the Continental Congress.
Far more Haudenosaunee (and American Indians generally) sided with the British cause than with the Colonists, in this case causing sufficient damage to the Continental cause to challenge American independence itself. George Washington eventually led a counter-attack so devastating that it earned him the name Town Destroyer (Conotocarious). He is remembered to this day as a bringer of horror and violence among the People of the Longhouse for his retribution attack.
Colonel Louis, who was also half-black, was the highest-ranked American Indian in the Continental Army, the only Indian with a Congressional commission, and was with George Washington at Valley Forge in 1777 and at the Battle of Johnstown in 1781. He remained an influential chief and advocate for the Haudenosaunee and a military adviser to the United States for the rest of his life. He died from wounds inflicted on a battlefield of the War of 1812.
The story of Brant, Cook, the Iroquois, and the Revolution seems so fascinating that I can't imagine why it's not been told more often. The divisions among the Haudenosaunee then mirror the divisions in America now. There should be a movie, a book, a history in some medium that tells this uniquely American story in better detail than Wikipedia and my poor post.
Far more Haudenosaunee (and American Indians generally) sided with the British cause than with the Colonists, in this case causing sufficient damage to the Continental cause to challenge American independence itself. George Washington eventually led a counter-attack so devastating that it earned him the name Town Destroyer (Conotocarious). He is remembered to this day as a bringer of horror and violence among the People of the Longhouse for his retribution attack.
Colonel Louis, who was also half-black, was the highest-ranked American Indian in the Continental Army, the only Indian with a Congressional commission, and was with George Washington at Valley Forge in 1777 and at the Battle of Johnstown in 1781. He remained an influential chief and advocate for the Haudenosaunee and a military adviser to the United States for the rest of his life. He died from wounds inflicted on a battlefield of the War of 1812.
The story of Brant, Cook, the Iroquois, and the Revolution seems so fascinating that I can't imagine why it's not been told more often. The divisions among the Haudenosaunee then mirror the divisions in America now. There should be a movie, a book, a history in some medium that tells this uniquely American story in better detail than Wikipedia and my poor post.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Iran, North Korea, and the United Arab Emirates
The headline reads UAE Seizes North Korean Weapons Shipment to Iran.
These aren't nuclear weapon parts, but they are explosives, rocket-propelled grenades, and other similar things of the type that have been killing Americans in Iraq. It's also wildly against UN resolutions. If the allegations that weapons have been smuggled over the border from Iran into Iraq are true, these weapons could've ended up being used against US troops in Iraq if they hadn't been caught.
I don't know if the North Korea/Iran connection existed before George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech in 2002, but it's clear he was right to list them together. They obviously have some traits and trade in common.
Remember the UAE ports deal? Many Republicans in the legislature and conservatives nationwide doubted whether US security should be entrusted to an Arab nation like the UAE, and whether they could truly be our allies. I think this definitively shows that 1) our best interests are aided by their actions, and 2) they are good at sea security. This only reinforces my belief that we should've let the UAE buy the ports they wanted, and that only short-sighted prejudice prevented it.
These aren't nuclear weapon parts, but they are explosives, rocket-propelled grenades, and other similar things of the type that have been killing Americans in Iraq. It's also wildly against UN resolutions. If the allegations that weapons have been smuggled over the border from Iran into Iraq are true, these weapons could've ended up being used against US troops in Iraq if they hadn't been caught.
I don't know if the North Korea/Iran connection existed before George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech in 2002, but it's clear he was right to list them together. They obviously have some traits and trade in common.
Remember the UAE ports deal? Many Republicans in the legislature and conservatives nationwide doubted whether US security should be entrusted to an Arab nation like the UAE, and whether they could truly be our allies. I think this definitively shows that 1) our best interests are aided by their actions, and 2) they are good at sea security. This only reinforces my belief that we should've let the UAE buy the ports they wanted, and that only short-sighted prejudice prevented it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)