Month: October 2009

Megan demurs:

A bill with a strong public option looks to me like a bill that can't pass. What am I missing?

That the Reid proposal is a weak public option with state opt-outs? Here's the beauty of it. No one really knows what a public option would ultimately mean. No one really knows what will become of much of these ideas in practice. And that is a real problem for reformers: the unintended consequences could be profound and yet they are also unknowable.

A conservative can say: therefore do nothing. The problem with that is that the status quo is extremely uncomfortable – fiscally and in terms of actual, you know, healthcare. In an insecure economy, it's more than uncomfortable, it's nerve-wracking.

So a conservative can also say: well, let's try it out in a few states and see what happens.

The point of federalism is its abilty to break out of the classic political dilemma: how to change when we are not entirely sure of what change could bring with it? Well: find out. Over time, let's see just how dreadful or helpful a public option is. Let's see if it really does kill off the private sector; let's see if it kills off medical excellence and choice. And let those decisions be made at the most accountable and measurable level: in the states.

It's weird, isn't it, that federalism is becoming an advantage for reform – marriage equality, ending the marijuana prohibition, the public option. But it always was. Conservatism, as I understand it, is not about resisting all change or defending an ideological purity. It's about the least worst, practically relevant solution to emerging problems.

Josh Marshall's take on the opt-out public option:

In two key ways the 'opt-out' flipped the political dynamics entirely. A big argument from Republicans was that the public option would force people into 'government health care' or in various other ways destroy the universe. The opt-out just says: 'fine, then don't allow it in your state. Next …' That takes a lot of the wind out of the sails of that argument. And, more pointedly, conservative and moderate Dems who were afraid of voting for the full public option seem to think that this gives them sufficient cover to vote for it — at least for the procedural 60 vote threshold, if not for the bill itself, which will take 50 votes. But that's all that's really necessary: getting past cloture.

Andrew Exum puts the resignation of Afghanistan Senior Civilian representative Matthew Hoh in context. Here is the WaPo's take on the story and here (pdf) is the resignation letter. From the letter:

To put simply: I fail to see the value or the worth in continued US casualties or expenditures or resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year old civil war.

Put like that … Ackerman has further thoughts.

He and the Democrats should be punished severely if the fiscal outlook is no brighter in a year's time. But for now, the following remains true (just don't expect Pajamasmedia to let you know):

Now let's fast forward to the end of fiscal year 2009, which ended on September 30. According to CBO, it ended with spending at $3,515 billion and revenues of $2,106 billion for a deficit of $1,409 billion. To recap, the deficit came in $223 billion higher than projected, but spending was $28 billion and revenues were $251 billion less than expected. Thus we can conclude that more than 100 percent of the increase in the deficit since January is accounted for by lower revenues. Not one penny is due to higher spending…

I continue to believe that the Republican position is nonsensical. Final proof is that the previously cited CBO report shows total federal revenues coming in at 14.9 percent of the gross domestic product in FY2009.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, one has to go back to 1950 to find a year when federal revenues were lower as a share of GDP. For reference, revenues averaged 18 percent of GDP during the Reagan administration and were never lower than 17.3 percent – 2.4 percent of GDP above where they are now.

I think there are grounds on which to criticize the Obama administration's anti-recession actions. But spending too much is not one of them. Indeed, based on this analysis, it is pretty obvious that spending – real spending on things like public works – has been grossly inadequate. The idea that Reagan-style tax cuts would have done anything is just nuts.

"Scientology can no longer hide behind freedom of conscience," – Catherine Picard, after a French court fined the club almost $1 million for "organized fraud".

This black.

The ascent of

If I'm razzing on Anita Dunn, I should also razz on John McCain, Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush, and Lee Atwater.  More than happy to.

Several reader have complained that I have fallen for a Beck trap: out-of–context quotes. But, as I said in my first post, I'm not buying the Beck idea that there are closet Maoists in the Obama administration. I'm buying the idea that some dumb and morally bankrupt lefties simply do not see Mao as he should be seen: as a murderous totalitarian monster. 

Here's the full Dunn quote. I stand by that judgment. Dunn would never have used Hitler as a source for perseverance and setting the right objectives. Why Because Hitler's evil is self-evident. So why is Mao's rancid evil not self-evident for a person like Dunn? Because she retains a double standard for far left totalitarianism over far right totalitarianism. It's that insulting and morally disgusting double standard that gets my goat. Mao was responsible for the deaths of up to 70 million people – and Dunn sees him as a useful strategist.

Disgusting; blind; dumb; appalling.