Month: November 2010

Here's a potentially fascinating development: a gay couple from Texas get a DC minister to marry them via Skype.

In DC, marriage is legal for gay couples; in Texas it isn't. The couple had to register in DC first, but the ceremony relied on remote technology. It almost certainly won't hold up under Texas law … and isn't an attempt to challenge the state's ban on marriage equality. But it does reveal the conflict between an institution now so geographically restricted in the US and the technology that is making geography less salient in our everyday lives.

Yglesias clarifies his position:

[W]hen I say that pre-emptive fiscal adjustment is unlikely I meant precisely that: It’s unlikely, not undesirable.  … Given the number of veto points in the American political system, large change is always unlikely. Given a problem on which it’s viable to delay action, politicians will prefer to delay. It is possible to delay action on fiscal adjustment. And a complete fiscal adjustment would involve multiple large changes. Ergo, it’s unlikely to happen.

Or that's what Dilbert's Scott Adams is proposing, at least. Then can Judge Sheindlin interview Mrs Palin?

"David Hume" at Secular Right reflects on ideology and socialization in America:

People often ask me if I’m really a conservative. Old friends, some of them not particularly liberal themselves. The reason is in large part my sociodemographic profile. I’m an atheist. I’m scientifically educated and inclined. I don’t hate France and appreciate fine foods. Often people will push me and ask if I’m a libertarian, rather than a conservative. I simply respond that I’m a conservative who happens to have some libertarian views, not a libertarian who happens to align with conservatives for tactical purposes. As an individualist in my personal life who has no deep need for conformity to the norms of my social circle I have no great interest in becoming a Left-liberal or libertarian to forestall the future queries I’ll no doubt receive. I’m satisfied with that.

But the bigger reality is most people are not like me. They conform and are shaped by the wisdom and norms of their subculture. Positive feedback loops of agreement naturally emerge with these networks. To be a liberal or conservative in the United States results in the acceptance of a wide set of beliefs which one has not closely examined, or which one is not even very well informed about.

It's a fascinating post – which makes me feel less lonely in my hybrid (by American standards) political identity. One commenter's pushback presents the atheist conservative dilemma rather succcinctly:

How do you decouple “tribal conservatism” of this culture from its foundational cult? To defend the basic traditional more of this society, you have to use its language, and that language is religious. The only other option, as far as I can see, is resorting to some sort of juvenile elitism, as Nietzsche did.

A reader writes:

As a long-time reader who staffs one of the 18 commissioners (and who therefore has been in the room for many of the private meetings), I would say that right now, 17 of the 18 commissioners are still sitting at the table trying to work constructively — even after seeing the frightening choices in the co-chairs' first marker.  (A certain left-wing congresswoman made it clear months ago that she had no interest in a solution.) 

Liberals are focused on their dislike of the 75/25 split between spending cuts and tax increases, but this is deceptive. 

It really breaks down like this: 25% taxes, 25% entitlement savings, 25% defense discretionary, and 25% non-defense discretionary.  Fully half comes from taxes and defense.  The problem, however, is that in the long run, half of the claimed deficit reduction is discretionary spending (both defense and non-defense).  This is a budget gimmick.  Discretionary spending is determined on an annual basis by regular appropriations bills; Bowles and Simpson are merely assuming that future Congresses will hold to their proposed line, despite an annual opportunity to revisit. 

Past precedent is not promising: discretionary spending caps can hold for a few years (perhaps helping the commission achieve its 2015 goal), but after that the pressures cause Congress to abandon those caps.  Simply asserting that discretionary spending will grow more slowly than GDP for decades is not a credible "plan".  That means that only half the long-term deficit reduction is real, and this half is split evenly between tax increases and entitlement reductions – which is a much less attractive ratio to conservatives (although at least the taxes come from broadening the base rather than raising rates).

Having said this, all but one commissioner is still willing to work on this as a starting point (which is all Bowles and Simpson intended).  And from a political perspective, that is promising in and of itself. 

Given the long-term fiscal calamity we face, I would never advise anyone to get up and walk away.  But there's still a gulf that has to be spanned – not just on ideology but on the very perception of what this proposal is actually doing.  And that gulf cannot be spanned if President Obama doesn't take ownership at some point and actually lead these commissioners to a deal.  They won't sign on the dotted line without him.  The commissioners need to keep tweaking the details among themselves, but at the end of the day nothing gets done without presidential leadership.  He can stay silent for a few more weeks, but at some point it might be his bluff that gets called.

Drum is willing to bargain:

It's true that I think we need to rein in spending on both Medicare and healthcare spending in general. Be amazed, conservatives! But there's a flip side to this: the American population is aging and medical care is getting more expensive. This is simply a fact, and it means that even if we slow the rate of healthcare inflation we're going to need more money for healthcare. You want Hard Truths? That's a hard truth. We need to rein in healthcare spending and we need to raise taxes to pay for the higher healthcare costs of an aging population. Anybody who's serious about addressing the long-term deficit needs to deal with this instead of indulging in fantasies.

It really does get better. Seriously:

Stephen Mihm and Jeffrey Wasserstrom think so.

The McCain family is deeply split over DADT.